Special General Meeting

Hi all, I've never posted on this forum before so please forgive any errors I may make. I'm trying to get 80 Richard III Society members together to call for a Special General Meeting. Below is an FB post I've copied that has already received some support. I hope it is self-explanatory.

If you agree, please reply indicating your support.

Thank You - Stephen Dillon


To All Members of The Richard III Society: Under Clause 11 (b) of its constitution, the Society requires a minimum 80 members to call for a Special General Meeting before such a meeting is duly arranged. I am posting this to see if I can get 80 "likes" from Society members so that we can organise ourselves and request a Special General Meeting be held to consider the following resolution; "That the Society should poll all its members on the question of where said members would prefer to see the remains of King Richard III interred. If a majority vote in favour of a single specific location is received, then that location should be adopted and publicised as the official recommendation of the Richard III society as to where the final resting place of King Richard III should be." If you agree with the above, please "like" this post.

Stephen, have you considered that any such meeting would only be for
those who can be bothered to turn up, or can actually get to wherever
the Society decided such a meeting will take place?
If it is like the AGM in London you would be lucky to get more than 100
members. Hardly a representative sample of the total membership, of
around 3000 at present I think, views.
Paul

On 03/05/2013 16:06, emmali1956 wrote:
> Hi all, I've never posted on this forum before so please forgive any errors I may make. I'm trying to get 80 Richard III Society members together to call for a Special General Meeting. Below is an FB post I've copied that has already received some support. I hope it is self-explanatory.
>
> If you agree, please reply indicating your support.
>
> Thank You - Stephen Dillon
>
>
> To All Members of The Richard III Society: Under Clause 11 (b) of its constitution, the Society requires a minimum 80 members to call for a Special General Meeting before such a meeting is duly arranged. I am posting this to see if I can get 80 "likes" from Society members so that we can organise ourselves and request a Special General Meeting be held to consider the following resolution; "That the Society should poll all its members on the question of where said members would prefer to see the remains of King Richard III interred. If a majority vote in favour of a single specific location is received, then that location should be adopted and publicised as the official recommendation of the Richard III society as to where the final resting place of King Richard III should be." If you agree with the above, please "like" this post.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks Paul

Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.

Regards

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen, have you considered that any such meeting would only be for
> those who can be bothered to turn up, or can actually get to wherever
> the Society decided such a meeting will take place?
> If it is like the AGM in London you would be lucky to get more than 100
> members. Hardly a representative sample of the total membership, of
> around 3000 at present I think, views.
> Paul
>
> On 03/05/2013 16:06, emmali1956 wrote:
> > Hi all, I've never posted on this forum before so please forgive any errors I may make. I'm trying to get 80 Richard III Society members together to call for a Special General Meeting. Below is an FB post I've copied that has already received some support. I hope it is self-explanatory.
> >
> > If you agree, please reply indicating your support.
> >
> > Thank You - Stephen Dillon
> >
> >
> > To All Members of The Richard III Society: Under Clause 11 (b) of its constitution, the Society requires a minimum 80 members to call for a Special General Meeting before such a meeting is duly arranged. I am posting this to see if I can get 80 "likes" from Society members so that we can organise ourselves and request a Special General Meeting be held to consider the following resolution; "That the Society should poll all its members on the question of where said members would prefer to see the remains of King Richard III interred. If a majority vote in favour of a single specific location is received, then that location should be adopted and publicised as the official recommendation of the Richard III society as to where the final resting place of King Richard III should be." If you agree with the above, please "like" this post.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn't go to all the trouble of London, that's for sure. Can't abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!

BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband's, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And he's not even MY cousin!

Sandra


From: emmali1956
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting

Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.

I would almost put money on it being London, if it is agreed to by the
committee of course.
But for me the principal of a small minority deciding everything for the
Society membership has always been something that angers me, being so
undemocratic. In this day and age an on line vote would be far more
democratic, and reach a far larger number of members, and little cost to
any.
Paul

On 03/05/2013 22:52, SandraMachin wrote:
> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn't go to all the trouble of London, that's for sure. Can't abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>
> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband's, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And he's not even MY cousin!
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: emmali1956
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh, yes! An on line vote would be excellent. I second that. I too agree
about the imbalance in the society. Having only just rejoined after a long
absence, I am quite shocked by the gulf that has developed. There would not
be a society if it were not for the rank and file members, yet there seems
to be no consultation at all. It's 'us and them'. A little like the Kremlin.
Or the wilful resistance of a western government to any thought of a
referendum on whatever subject. Sorry folks, but that's how it feels.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

I would almost put money on it being London, if it is agreed to by the
committee of course.
But for me the principal of a small minority deciding everything for the
Society membership has always been something that angers me, being so
undemocratic. In this day and age an on line vote would be far more
democratic, and reach a far larger number of members, and little cost to
any.
Paul

On 03/05/2013 22:52, SandraMachin wrote:
> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with
> plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members
> from all over to make the effort. I wouldn't go to all the trouble of
> London, that's for sure. Can't abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And
> not that car park!
>
> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband's, who told me that
> when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he
> actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair
> shirt, or something. And he's not even MY cousin!
>
> Sandra
>

Hello All.
There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
I would like to attend the next AGM to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn’t go to all the trouble of London, that’s for sure. Can’t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>
> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband’s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And he’s not even MY cousin!
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: emmali1956
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>
>
>
>

From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> Oh, yes! An on line vote would be excellent. I second that. I too agree
> about the imbalance in the society. Having only just rejoined after a long
> absence, I am quite shocked by the gulf that has developed. There would
> not
> be a society if it were not for the rank and file members, yet there seems
> to be no consultation at all. It's 'us and them'. A little like the
> Kremlin.
> Or the wilful resistance of a western government to any thought of a
> referendum on whatever subject. Sorry folks, but that's how it feels.

I'd have liked to have seen a consultation about the tomb design, and there
wasn't one, was there? They should have asked for submissions, then
selected the best 15 or 20, posted them on-line and asked members to vote
and then presented the cathedral with the three or four most popular designs
to pick from.

Yes, Claire, there should have been consultation on the tomb, which will
mean so very much to us all, not simply to the few folk who dealt with it.
It's all a matter of taste, and the feelings of the majority should be
paramount in this instance. The tomb design at present before us is, to me,
bulky and clumpy. For Richard III? The last thing he was is bulky or clumpy.
Something much more refined and aesthetically pleasing is needed for him.
Something that really speaks of the man we all know he was. We don't just
think he was, we know it. His final resting place---tomb and place---should
reflect as much. And I do not forget that the Society does not have the
ultimate right to anything concerning him. But if it is to be prepared to
stand up on its hind legs and bray, it needs a damned juicy, elegantly
shaped carrot to bray about. Sandra

Claire says: I'd have liked to have seen a consultation about the tomb
design, and there
wasn't one, was there? They should have asked for submissions, then
selected the best 15 or 20, posted them on-line and asked members to vote
and then presented the cathedral with the three or four most popular designs
to pick from.
From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

> Oh, yes! An on line vote would be excellent. I second that. I too agree
> about the imbalance in the society. Having only just rejoined after a long
> absence, I am quite shocked by the gulf that has developed. There would
> not
> be a society if it were not for the rank and file members, yet there seems
> to be no consultation at all. It's 'us and them'. A little like the
> Kremlin.
> Or the wilful resistance of a western government to any thought of a
> referendum on whatever subject. Sorry folks, but that's how it feels.

From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> Yes, Claire, there should have been consultation on the tomb, which will
> mean so very much to us all, not simply to the few folk who dealt with it.
> It's all a matter of taste, and the feelings of the majority should be
> paramount in this instance. The tomb design at present before us is, to
> me,
> bulky and clumpy.

Yes. It looks like, somebody designed it on a CAD programme which they
weren't that good at operating, so they went for something which "would do"
and ended up with something which looks like stage setting for a video game.

> For Richard III? The last thing he was is bulky or clumpy.
> Something much more refined and aesthetically pleasing is needed for him.

My own suggestion was for a slimline plain white tomb, no gilding (which
will only attract metal thieves anyway), with

Hic jacet
RICHARD III
KING OF ENGLAND
"late mercifully reigning over us"

carved in deep letters lengthwise on the top, his dates of birth and
coronation on one long side and of death and re-burial on the other, and
then the following low-relief ornamentation: a band of small white roses or
of alternating roses and balls around the base at floor level; a small sprig
of planta genista at each of the top corners, just under the lid; a plain
leopards-and-lilies shield on the end panel at his head and the boar on the
panel at his feet - possibly the design of boar used by the Society, to
enshrine its contribution, but at any rate one which is noticeable and nice
enough that local children will want to pat the nice piggy as they pass by,
so Richard will be part of the community. Any lengthier and more detailed
descriptions can go on a carved or embossed panel on the wall nearby.

I like Liz (think it was Liz)'s suggestion of working in the Bacon quote. I
don't think I've ever seen it in its original form - only Rosemary
Sutcliff's paraphrase of it, which was something like "... the memory of
Richard III lay like lees at the bottom of a wine cup, so that one only had
to tap the glass for it to rise up and permeate the whole".

"... the memory of King Richard was so strong, that it lay like lees in the
bottom of men's hearts; and if the vessel was but stirred it would come
up." [the context for this is how difficult the northerners were, where...]
from The works of Francis Bacon,ý new edition by Basil Montagu, Esq. Vol.
III. MDCCCXXV. History of King Henry VII p 228

I find it an extraordinary observation, still true today, especially coming
from someone who also wrote "the star-chamberý is one of the sagest and
noblest institutions of this kingdom."

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>


> <snip>
>
> I like Liz (think it was Liz)'s suggestion of working in the Bacon quote.
> I
> don't think I've ever seen it in its original form - only Rosemary
> Sutcliff's paraphrase of it, which was something like "... the memory of
> Richard III lay like lees at the bottom of a wine cup, so that one only had
> to tap the glass for it to rise up and permeate the whole".
>
>
>

As far as I know, the tomb design was commissioned by Philippa in 2010, not the Society.  Perhaps she felt as the instigator of the search for Richard and all the work and personal effort she had put into it, she was perhaps entitled to do so.  I know that donations were received by the Society to cover the cost of the tomb, but as far as I am aware, no-one was forced to donate.

I am concerned that there are splits being actively pursued, setting one part of the Society against the other, a presentation of things as a north-south divide, of a money grubbing Leicester against the purity of York as the place for Richard's reburial.  Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.    

I find it rather sad that, at a time when all members of the Society should be delighted that Richard has been found and will be reburied with honour, things seem to be degenerating into a series of potentially nasty spats.  It is bad enough that the Internet seems to be full of nasty, hateful things about Richard without similar things happening within the Society, where a large number of dedicated people have worked very hard to accomplish its mission of getting a reassessment of the man himself, over a long period of time.  







________________________________
Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:


From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> Yes, Claire, there should have been consultation on the tomb, which will
> mean so very much to us all, not simply to the few folk who dealt with it.
> It's all a matter of taste, and the feelings of the majority should be
> paramount in this instance. The tomb design at present before us is, to
> me,
> bulky and clumpy.

Yes.  It looks like, somebody designed it on a CAD programme which they
weren't that good at operating, so they went for something which "would do"
and ended up with something which looks like stage setting for a video game.

> For Richard III? The last thing he was is bulky or clumpy.
> Something much more refined and aesthetically pleasing is needed for him.

My own suggestion was for a slimline plain white tomb, no gilding (which
will only attract metal thieves anyway), with

Hic jacet
RICHARD III
KING OF ENGLAND
"late mercifully reigning over us"

carved in deep letters lengthwise on the top, his dates of birth and
coronation on one long side and of death and re-burial on the other, and
then the following low-relief ornamentation: a band of small white roses or
of alternating roses and balls around the base at floor level; a small sprig
of planta genista at each of the top corners, just under the lid; a plain
leopards-and-lilies shield on the end panel at his head and the boar on the
panel at his feet - possibly the design of boar used by the Society, to
enshrine its contribution, but at any rate one which is noticeable and nice
enough that local children will want to pat the nice piggy as they pass by,
so Richard will be part of the community.  Any lengthier and more detailed
descriptions can go on a carved or embossed panel on the wall nearby.

I like Liz (think it was Liz)'s suggestion of working in the Bacon quote.  I
don't think I've ever seen it in its original form - only Rosemary
Sutcliff's paraphrase of it, which was something like "... the memory of
Richard III lay like lees at the bottom of a wine cup, so that one only had
to tap the glass for it to rise up and permeate the whole".



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I was delighted until I read the "design brief" put out by the Leicester
"cathedral" authorities.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> As far as I know, the tomb design was commissioned by Philippa in 2010,
> not the Society. Perhaps she felt as the instigator of the search for
> Richard and all the work and personal effort she had put into it, she was
> perhaps entitled to do so. I know that donations were received by the
> Society to cover the cost of the tomb, but as far as I am aware, no-one was
> forced to donate.
>
> I am concerned that there are splits being actively pursued, setting one
> part of the Society against the other, a presentation of things as a
> north-south divide, of a money grubbing Leicester against the purity of
> York as the place for Richard's reburial. Someone even appeared to equate
> the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
>
> I find it rather sad that, at a time when all members of the Society
> should be delighted that Richard has been found and will be reburied with
> honour, things seem to be degenerating into a series of potentially nasty
> spats. It is bad enough that the Internet seems to be full of nasty,
> hateful things about Richard without similar things happening within the
> Society, where a large number of dedicated people have worked very hard to
> accomplish its mission of getting a reassessment of the man himself, over a
> long period of time.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 12:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > Yes, Claire, there should have been consultation on the tomb, which will
> > mean so very much to us all, not simply to the few folk who dealt with
> it.
> > It's all a matter of taste, and the feelings of the majority should be
> > paramount in this instance. The tomb design at present before us is, to
> > me,
> > bulky and clumpy.
>
> Yes. It looks like, somebody designed it on a CAD programme which they
> weren't that good at operating, so they went for something which "would
> do"
> and ended up with something which looks like stage setting for a video
> game.
>
> > For Richard III? The last thing he was is bulky or clumpy.
> > Something much more refined and aesthetically pleasing is needed for him.
>
> My own suggestion was for a slimline plain white tomb, no gilding (which
> will only attract metal thieves anyway), with
>
> Hic jacet
> RICHARD III
> KING OF ENGLAND
> "late mercifully reigning over us"
>
> carved in deep letters lengthwise on the top, his dates of birth and
> coronation on one long side and of death and re-burial on the other, and
> then the following low-relief ornamentation: a band of small white roses
> or
> of alternating roses and balls around the base at floor level; a small
> sprig
> of planta genista at each of the top corners, just under the lid; a plain
> leopards-and-lilies shield on the end panel at his head and the boar on
> the
> panel at his feet - possibly the design of boar used by the Society, to
> enshrine its contribution, but at any rate one which is noticeable and
> nice
> enough that local children will want to pat the nice piggy as they pass
> by,
> so Richard will be part of the community. Any lengthier and more detailed
> descriptions can go on a carved or embossed panel on the wall nearby.
>
> I like Liz (think it was Liz)'s suggestion of working in the Bacon quote.
> I
> don't think I've ever seen it in its original form - only Rosemary
> Sutcliff's paraphrase of it, which was something like "... the memory of
> Richard III lay like lees at the bottom of a wine cup, so that one only
> had
> to tap the glass for it to rise up and permeate the whole".
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.


Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here for long, but all I've seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I won't go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a little.

Yes, but prod it to do what?  Perhaps it is trying to be neutral because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its membership against another.  Some years ago, a substantial part of the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took itself off in a huff and set up another group.  Perhaps, in taking a neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar thing happening again.

As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.



________________________________
 SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:



 
From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.

Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here for long, but all I've seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I won't go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a little.

Totally agree with your comment Sandra. I have always thought that an on line vote for members and/or even a postal vote for those who do not have computer access (hopefully in the minority, but still important).  To my mind at least, I cannot understand why everybody who has ever had any interest in Richard, and his life and times, or even an interest in medieval, or Tudor!! history, or any history for that matter, should not be given the right (it is a democracy is it not?) to put their views to the vote...   There will always be arguments for both sides of the coin, its just that imo one side is shinier than the other!!!
Regards


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 11:15
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


Oh, yes! An on line vote would be excellent. I second that. I too agree
about the imbalance in the society. Having only just rejoined after a long
absence, I am quite shocked by the gulf that has developed. There would not
be a society if it were not for the rank and file members, yet there seems
to be no consultation at all. It's 'us and them'. A little like the Kremlin.
Or the wilful resistance of a western government to any thought of a
referendum on whatever subject. Sorry folks, but that's how it feels.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

I would almost put money on it being London, if it is agreed to by the
committee of course.
But for me the principal of a small minority deciding everything for the
Society membership has always been something that angers me, being so
undemocratic. In this day and age an on line vote would be far more
democratic, and reach a far larger number of members, and little cost to
any.
Paul

On 03/05/2013 22:52, SandraMachin wrote:
> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with
> plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members
> from all over to make the effort. I wouldn't go to all the trouble of
> London, that's for sure. Can't abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And
> not that car park!
>
> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband's, who told me that
> when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he
> actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair
> shirt, or something. And he's not even MY cousin!
>
> Sandra
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
Sandra: Ouch! But I still stand by my opinion.

To be honest...I don't think there is anything the Society CAN do re Richard's burial place. The decision making lies with others....and to tell you the truth I think it has already been decided and that is that. Im sorry to sound so negative and I not happy even saying it...and I admire those who are still trying to make a difference in the outcome or have an input but I think we are all going to be presented with a fait accompli...

I feel it is a shame and Im bitterly disappointed that, to my knowledge, York Minster has not thrown its hat in the ring and announced publicly loud and clear they would be very happy to give Richard's remains a burial place.....and until they do, I will not hold my breath, then I dont think it is worth arguing that Richard should go to York...If I wrong about York Minster's apparent reluctance to having Richard then I will apologise...but they really do need to get their finger out because time marches on. and King Richard needs to be laid to rest once and for all..Eileen

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, but prod it to do what?  Perhaps it is trying to be neutral because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its membership against another.  Some years ago, a substantial part of the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took itself off in a huff and set up another group.  Perhaps, in taking a neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar thing happening again.
>
> As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
>
> Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn’t backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven’t been back here for long, but all I’ve seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn’t they be keeping the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but it’s my interpretation. It’s like waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I won’t go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a little.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No, I'm sorry - as a new member, it is not obvious to me what "the Society"
cares about; it seems to be much more comfortable with the slow pace of
academic pursuit (which *is* a good thing, & over time accomplishes a lot)
than they are with dealing with a real-time situation - one in which they
(as our representatives) seem to have been outmaneuvered badly by other
entities with different agendas.

At this point "the Society's" knowledge of its members opinions about what
happens to Richard's remains is taken from e-mails sent by concerned
members & possibly from reading posts here? So yes, there's a level of
awareness of divergence of opinion, but not, I think, a precise assessment
of what the whole membership thinks.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Yes, but prod it to do what? Perhaps it is trying to be neutral because
> it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its membership against
> another. Some years ago, a substantial part of the Society's membership
> fell out with its leadership and took itself off in a huff and set up
> another group. Perhaps, in taking a neutral stance, the current leadership
> is trying to stop a similar thing happening again.
>
> As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
>
> ________________________________
>
> SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
>
> Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isnýt
> backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I havenýt been back here for
> long, but all Iýve seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society,
> thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldnýt they be keeping the hoi polloi
> up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to
> offend, but itýs my interpretation. Itýs like waiting for an announcement
> to be pinned up at Buck House. I wonýt go on about it. My piece has been
> said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not?
> I just want to prod it a little.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quite. We should except them to negotiate with a free hand.
----- Original Message -----
From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



Yes, but prod it to do what? Perhaps it is trying to be neutral because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its membership against another. Some years ago, a substantial part of the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took itself off in a huff and set up another group. Perhaps, in taking a neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar thing happening again.

As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.

________________________________
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:



From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.

Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here for long, but all I've seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I won't go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a little.

SandraMachin wrote:

"That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't backbiting, merely
bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here for long, but all I've
seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society,
thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping the hoi polloi
up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to
offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like waiting for an announcement to
be pinned up at Buck House. I won't go on about it. My piece has been said.
But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just
want to prod it a little."

Doug here:
I understood the various officers of the Society were "volunteers"; ie,
they're not getting paid for the positions they hold. Is that correct?
Because if that *is* the case, then any work those officials do is done in
whatever time they can spare away from their jobs and their own private
lives. While it *would* be nice if the officials of the Society centered
their entire lives around the Society and its' members, to expect them to do
so is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
Just as an example, we've seen members on this ver board, definitely all
"volunteers" on their part, "retire" from posting for a time because the
volume was interfering with their private lives. Do we want that to happen
with officials from the Society? I can't see what the Society and its'
members would gain if that happened.
As for what the "Society thinks/intends/wants/cares about"; I've always
presumed the "Society" consisted of its' members and that what *they* wanted
was an honest account of Richard's life to replace the legends and
falsehoods that currently reside in the history books. I still do and
nothing I've seen has changed that opinion.
What I've *not* seen is the Society get involved in, for want of a better
phrase, are the "intramural" squabbles about where to re-interr Richard or
over the design of any proposed tomb. Which, in my opinion, they shouldn't
without knowing what the membership wants, thus the silence on their part.
I incline to the view that any "silence" between the Society and its'
members about these issues is merely a reflection of what the Society is
getting from officialdom. We haven't been getting any information from the
Society because the *Society* hasn't been getting any information from
Leicester (Cathedral/University) or the MoJ. I'm not trying to excuse any
failures on the part of the various bureaucracies involved, but there *is* a
difference between "prodding" a bureaucracy and making a pest of oneself and
I'm certain the Society doesn't want to come across as the latter. I will
say, I'm glad it's not me having to deal with them (the bureaucrats)!
I really like your idea of a poll limited to members and available both on-
and off-line, though. Something along the lines of a standardized form that
could be printed out for those without access to a computer or simply filled
in if one does have access? It should also include which RIII organization
the person is a member of in order to ensure the polling reflects the
*members'* views as accurately as possible and not just those of someone
with access to a computer.
Doug
(whose years in the military *may* be responsible for expecting a "hurry up
and wait" attitude from *any* bureaucracy)

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> No, I'm sorry - as a new member, it is not obvious to me what "the
> Society"
cares about;

It's certainly the case that when I was a member in the late 70s and early
80s I ahd much more of a sense of having joined a group, a community, rather
than just subscribed to a magazine. But of course that was probably partly
because I was living in the south of England at the time, so there were more
members in the area and there were joint trips to Bosworth and so on.

Great post, Doug.


________________________________
Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>wrote:

I understood the various officers of the Society were "volunteers"; ie,
they're not getting paid for the positions they hold. Is that correct?
Because if that *is* the case, then any work those officials do is done in
whatever time they can spare away from their jobs and their own private
lives. While it *would* be nice if the officials of the Society centered
their entire lives around the Society and its' members, to expect them to do
so is, in my opinion, unrealistic.
Just as an example, we've seen members on this ver board, definitely all
"volunteers" on their part, "retire" from posting for a time because the
volume was interfering with their private lives. Do we want that to happen
with officials from the Society? I can't see what the Society and its'
members would gain if that happened.
As for what the "Society thinks/intends/wants/cares about"; I've always
presumed the "Society" consisted of its' members and that what *they* wanted
was an honest account of Richard's life to replace the legends and
falsehoods that currently reside in the history books. I still do and
nothing I've seen has changed that opinion.
What I've *not* seen is the Society get involved in, for want of a better
phrase, are the "intramural" squabbles about where to re-interr Richard or
over the design of any proposed tomb. Which, in my opinion, they shouldn't
without knowing what the membership wants, thus the silence on their part.
I incline to the view that any "silence" between the Society and its'
members about these issues is merely a reflection of what the Society is
getting from officialdom. We haven't been getting any information from the
Society because the *Society* hasn't been getting any information from
Leicester (Cathedral/University) or the MoJ. I'm not trying to excuse any
failures on the part of the various bureaucracies involved, but there *is* a
difference between "prodding" a bureaucracy and making a pest of oneself and
I'm certain the Society doesn't want to come across as the latter. I will
say, I'm glad it's not me having to deal with them (the bureaucrats)!
I really like your idea of a poll limited to members and available both on-
and off-line, though. Something along the lines of a standardized form that
could be printed out for those without access to a computer or simply filled
in if one does have access? It should also include which RIII organization
the person is a member of in order to ensure the polling reflects the
*members'* views as accurately as possible and not just those of someone
with access to a computer.
Doug
(whose years in the military *may* be responsible for expecting a "hurry up
and wait" attitude from *any* bureaucracy)

I do agree. To put it crudely we're shareholders. Now most of the time the sharedholders are happy to let the Board get on with the job. But this is no ordinary time.
 
I would for example still like to know the legal basis of their agreement with Leicester University about the dig. Was there one? Or was the Society just so grateful that someone was interested and signed away all rights? Did they sign anything? And on the issue of anything as controversial as a burial should not all the shareholders have been consulted?
 
I'm sure the Chairman of any other company would have been asked some searching questions by now.
 
Sorry, don't usually get hot under the collar, but met an archaeologist this week (who'd been to Leicester) and who couldn't believe that Philippa and JAH did not own the rights.  H


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 14:51
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


No, I'm sorry - as a new member, it is not obvious to me what "the Society"
cares about; it seems to be much more comfortable with the slow pace of
academic pursuit (which *is* a good thing, & over time accomplishes a lot)
than they are with dealing with a real-time situation - one in which they
(as our representatives) seem to have been outmaneuvered badly by other
entities with different agendas.

At this point "the Society's" knowledge of its members opinions about what
happens to Richard's remains is taken from e-mails sent by concerned
members & possibly from reading posts here?  So yes, there's a level of
awareness of divergence of opinion, but not, I think, a precise assessment
of what the whole membership thinks.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Pamela Furmidge <
pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Yes, but prod it to do what?  Perhaps it is trying to be neutral because
> it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its membership against
> another.  Some years ago, a substantial part of the Society's membership
> fell out with its leadership and took itself off in a huff and set up
> another group.  Perhaps, in taking a neutral stance, the current leadership
> is trying to stop a similar thing happening again.
>
> As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
>
> ________________________________
>
>  SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
>
> Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't
> backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here for
> long, but all I've seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society,
> thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping the hoi polloi
> up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to
> offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like waiting for an announcement
> to be pinned up at Buck House. I won't go on about it. My piece has been
> said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not?
> I just want to prod it a little.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
Paul

On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@... wrote:
>
> Hello All.
> There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> I would like to attend the next AGM to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnâ¬"t go to all the trouble of London, thatâ¬"s for sure. Canâ¬"t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>>
>> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandâ¬"s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heâ¬"s not even MY cousin!
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: emmali1956
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Doug: I understood the various officers of the Society were "volunteers"; ie,
they're not getting paid for the positions they hold. Is that correct?
Because if that *is* the case, then any work those officials do is done in
whatever time they can spare away from their jobs and their own private
lives. While it *would* be nice if the officials of the Society centered
their entire lives around the Society and its' members, to expect them to do
so is, in my opinion, unrealistic.


Sandra: No one has suggested the officers of the Society should centre their entire lives around anything. Or that they are more than volunteers. I know there may be a paucity of information, but not saying anything at all leads to frustration. A little like being left on hold' without any music. It's the resounding silence that confounds. A post or two here and there would be helpful, even if it is to say We have nothing new to report, but we're still on the case. At the moment we are being left to conclude that is what they are doing.

I agree with Paul. I'm a member of the American Branch and would certainly vote, if notice were sent out. Those who don't have computers could give their proxy statements to friends who do...or else use the post. One stamp for Richard? It's not a big financial sacrifice by the sender, especially if those paper ballots are toted up and accounted for by the Branch, rather than being collected directly from overseas.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
Paul

On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@... wrote:
>
> Hello All.
>  There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> I would like to attend the next AGM  to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnâ¬"t go to all the trouble of London, thatâ¬"s for sure. Canâ¬"t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>>
>> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandâ¬"s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heâ¬"s not even MY cousin!
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: emmali1956
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

How would members not on line know about an online poll? It could only be done by the Bulletin, of course, or an insert therewith. We could technically (IMO) be in receipt of such with the June/Summer edition.

As regards the related matter being discussed on these boards, of the tomb design , then there have been numerous editions of the Bulletin since 2010. Hmmm?
Ron.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 16:15
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
Paul

On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@... wrote:
>
> Hello All.
>  There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> I would like to attend the next AGM  to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnâ¬"t go to all the trouble of London, thatâ¬"s for sure. Canâ¬"t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>>
>> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandâ¬"s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heâ¬"s not even MY cousin!
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: emmali1956
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi again, The Society have enough funds to pay for a few stamps for those not online we do pay subscriptions and many of us wonder at times what we are paying for and email costs nothing.
Christine.
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Paul. I'm a member of the American Branch and would certainly vote, if notice were sent out. Those who don't have computers could give their proxy statements to friends who do...or else use the post. One stamp for Richard? It's not a big financial sacrifice by the sender, especially if those paper ballots are toted up and accounted for by the Branch, rather than being collected directly from overseas.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
> Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
> hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
> ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
> Paul
>
> On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@... wrote:
> >
> > Hello All.
> >  There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> > The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> > I would like to attend the next AGM  to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> > It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn’t go to all the trouble of London, that’s for sure. Can’t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
> >>
> >> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband’s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And he’s not even MY cousin!
> >>
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: emmali1956
> >> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
> >>
> >> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

SandraMachin wrote:

"No one has suggested the officers of the Society should centre their entire
lives around anything. Or that they are more than volunteers. I know there
may be a paucity of information, but not saying anything at all leads to
frustration. A little like being left on hold' without any music. It's the
resounding silence that confounds. A post or two here and there would be
helpful, even if it is to say We have nothing new to report, but we're
still on the case. At the moment we are being left to conclude that is what
they are doing."

Doug here:
I tend to operate on the idea that if nothing is reported, then nothing has
happened to *be* reported and don't worry. I do agree with you that an
occasional post, even it adds nothing new, would undoubtedly be appreciated
by many.
Doug




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Pamela Furmidge wrote:

"Great post, Doug."

Thank you.
My problem is that, while I have some acquaintance with bureaucracies
(public *and* private) here in the US, I'm completely lost with those in the
UK. Are the "processes" the same; ie, proposals made, legality and viability
of said proposals studied, final determination of the legal status of the
proposal/s, where funding for the proposal/s will come from, any
rules/regulations that must be met, schedule of meetings concerning the
ability to meet said rules and regulations, meetings on the progress
of...everything!
I'm not certain what happens to a bureaucrat who *doesn't* cross every "T"
and dot every "I", but I'll bet it's not pretty!
Doug
(BTW, for these purposes, I consider the CoE as just another bureaucracy. No
offence meant.)

I would as well.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



I agree with Paul. I'm a member of the American Branch and would certainly vote, if notice were sent out. Those who don't have computers could give their proxy statements to friends who do...or else use the post. One stamp for Richard? It's not a big financial sacrifice by the sender, especially if those paper ballots are toted up and accounted for by the Branch, rather than being collected directly from overseas.

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
Paul

On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Hello All.
> There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> I would like to attend the next AGM to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnâ¬"t go to all the trouble of London, thatâ¬"s for sure. Canâ¬"t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>>
>> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandâ¬"s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heâ¬"s not even MY cousin!
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: emmali1956
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Would it not be more effective to 'prod' on the internal list rather
than this one?

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>:

> Quite. We should except them to negotiate with a free hand.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
> Yes, but prod it to do what? Perhaps it is trying to be neutral
> because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its
> membership against another. Some years ago, a substantial part of
> the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took
> itself off in a huff and set up another group. Perhaps, in taking a
> neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar
> thing happening again.
>
> As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
>
> ________________________________
> SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
>
> Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't
> backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here
> for long, but all I've seen is a lot of people wondering what the
> Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping
> the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting
> for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like
> waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I won't
> go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the
> Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a
> little.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

AGM = Annual General Meeting. The clue is in the name - there is
nothing to stop all members attending. I turned up unannounced at the
last one. However, it obviously helps for catering, numbers of chairs,
etc if people do say they are coming.

I travelled from Gloucestershire to York. Other years I have travelled
from Gloucestershire to London. There is nowhere convenient for
everyone, and London is easy to get to from more places, even if not
cheap.

There is nothing to stop any member of the Society from standing for
an officership or as a member of the Executive.

If you (I don't just mean the Yorkshire Christine) don't like how the
Executive are running the Society, fill in a nomination form when the
time comes.

If you know how to run an e-ballot cheaply and easily, share this
information with the Executive. They might not have the knowledge and
expertise already. They may well ask you to set it up so that it
happens.

I'm happy. If you aren't, it's up to you to take a lead.

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting "christineholmes651@..."
<christineholmes651@...>:


> The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so
> anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as
> far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in
> this day and age of email etc.
> I would like to attend the next AGM to have my say but its in
> London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South
> Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining
> the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>>
>> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get
>> to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will
>> encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn’t go
>> to all the trouble of London, that’s for sure. Can’t abide the
>> place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>>
>> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband’s, who told me
>> that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago
>> now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should
>> wear a hair shirt, or something. And he’s not even MY cousin!
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: emmali1956
>> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing
>> just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to
>> something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

This isn't the Society's list? Where does one find the "internal list?"

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Would it not be more effective to 'prod' on the internal list rather
> than this one?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Quoting Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>:
>
> > Quite. We should except them to negotiate with a free hand.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, but prod it to do what? Perhaps it is trying to be neutral
> > because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its
> > membership against another. Some years ago, a substantial part of
> > the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took
> > itself off in a huff and set up another group. Perhaps, in taking a
> > neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar
> > thing happening again.
> >
> > As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have
> thought.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
> >
> > Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isnýt
> > backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I havenýt been back here
> > for long, but all Iýve seen is a lot of people wondering what the
> > Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldnýt they be keeping
> > the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting
> > for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but itýs my interpretation. Itýs like
> > waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I wonýt
> > go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the
> > Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a
> > little.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hi, Christine 

The way I see it, the discussion here isn't prodding anyone to do anything. It is a conversation, as a result of which we individual members may decide on an appropriate action (or not, as the case may be). After all, this list is made up of members and non-members of the Society.



What do you mean the internal list? There is one for members of the American branch, but I'm not aware of any other list for the parent branch in the UK, which is what I'm a member of, even tho I live in Canada.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Christine Headley
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 1:42 PM
To: ; Stephen Lark
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



Would it not be more effective to 'prod' on the internal list rather
than this one?

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@... <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net> >:

> Quite. We should except them to negotiate with a free hand.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
> Yes, but prod it to do what? Perhaps it is trying to be neutral
> because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its
> membership against another. Some years ago, a substantial part of
> the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took
> itself off in a huff and set up another group. Perhaps, in taking a
> neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar
> thing happening again.
>
> As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
>
>

MARKETPLACE

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132k51ftv(gid$9477ff86-b4d9-11e2-8a97-c3570e48850f,st$1367685736633381,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121gre32v,aid$rurWOmKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132k51ftv(gid$9477ff86-b4d9-11e2-8a97-c3570e48850f,st$1367685736633381,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121c3gj4v,aid$tDnXOmKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132k51ftv(gid$9477ff86-b4d9-11e2-8a97-c3570e48850f,st$1367685736633381,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121ng95ar,aid$uojXOmKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ2RvNG51BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3Njg1NzM2> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35067/stime=1367685736/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

I second the query, A J.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: A J Hibbard
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

This isn't the Society's list? Where does one find the "internal list?"

A J

But Sandra, London IS easy to get to - for some of us!  If you don't like that how about Colchester?  (Said she who lives there.)
 
Liz
 
P.S.  Sorry about the husband's cousin but I don't think Richard would hold it against you


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 22:52
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

 
Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn't go to all the trouble of London, that's for sure. Can't abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!

BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband's, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And he's not even MY cousin!

Sandra

From: emmali1956
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting

Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.

If the Society Executive Committe consists of amateurs surely they've enough membership fees now:
 
a. to fund a postal ballot
b. to employ a full-time professional (or more) who can deal with legal, PR and membership relations issues. As we've seen the find has potentially made Richard 'big business' like it or not.
 
At the moment it seems to operate like Dibley Parish Council. There's nothing wrong with amateur enthusiasm, but you have to know when to take advice from the professionals to protect your interests and to enhance your image to the outside world.
 

________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 17:11
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting

 

Hi again, The Society have enough funds to pay for a few stamps for those not online we do pay subscriptions and many of us wonder at times what we are paying for and email costs nothing.
Christine.
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with Paul. I'm a member of the American Branch and would certainly vote, if notice were sent out. Those who don't have computers could give their proxy statements to friends who do...or else use the post. One stamp for Richard? It's not a big financial sacrifice by the sender, especially if those paper ballots are toted up and accounted for by the Branch, rather than being collected directly from overseas.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
> Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
> hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
> ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
> Paul
>
> On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@... wrote:
> >
> > Hello All.
> >  There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> > The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> > I would like to attend the next AGM  to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> > It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnââ¬â¢t go to all the trouble of London, thatââ¬â¢s for sure. Canââ¬â¢t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
> >>
> >> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandââ¬â¢s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heââ¬â¢s not even MY cousin!
> >>
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: emmali1956
> >> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
> >>
> >> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

It's another Yahoo group, called Richard3

You need to be a member of the Society, and I think it's run by the
American Branch. I joined so long ago I can't remember how I did it.

My 'Forum' folder contains 4000+ e-mails, and in the same time that
one has only received some 300.

As I understand it, this list is open to anyone who is interested in
the subject and not just wanting to 'stir'.

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>:

> I second the query, A J.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A J Hibbard
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:23 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> This isn't the Society's list? Where does one find the "internal list?"
>
> A J
>

Yes, I'm a member of that forum, by virtue of my membership in the American
Branch. The larger forum, I thought, is sponsored by the parent Society in
England, as is the Richard III Society Facebook page. Please correct me if
I'm wrong

I'm not sure how much "prodding" the American branch through its forum
would impact the parent Society.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> It's another Yahoo group, called Richard3
>
> You need to be a member of the Society, and I think it's run by the
> American Branch. I joined so long ago I can't remember how I did it.
>
> My 'Forum' folder contains 4000+ e-mails, and in the same time that
> one has only received some 300.
>
> As I understand it, this list is open to anyone who is interested in
> the subject and not just wanting to 'stir'.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
>
> Quoting SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>:
>
> > I second the query, A J.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A J Hibbard
> > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:23 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > This isn't the Society's list? Where does one find the "internal list?"
> >
> > A J
> >
>
>
>

Hi Liz. Colchester? Look, I'm a lazy so and so. So it's an e-ballot for me, if possible. I do at least have the energy to do that. <g> Mind you, we always stick a pin in a map and see where it lands...

As for my husband's cousin and the car park. I'm still gutted. And my daughter's married name is Stanley. Same lot, I'm given to understand. How am I ever going to live down the shame????? I think even Richard would be giving me sideways looks by now. One more transgression and I'll be getting the sternly wagged finger and a thumb jerked toward the Tower. And my lands confiscated. So that's one pocket-handkerchief back garden in the royal pocket.

Sandra



From: liz williams
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

But Sandra, London IS easy to get to - for some of us! If you don't like that how about Colchester? (Said she who lives there.)

Liz

P.S. Sorry about the husband's cousin but I don't think Richard would hold it against you

"Claire M Jordan wrote:

>
> [snip] My own suggestion was for a slimline plain white tomb, no gilding (which will only attract metal thieves anyway), with
>
> Hic jacet
> RICHARD III
> KING OF ENGLAND
> "late mercifully reigning over us" [snip]

Carol responds:

The actual wording (modern spelling) was "late mercifully reigning upon us," which I like because (for me) it conjures up an image of Richard's rule as a gentle rain (reign/rain) falling upon the citizens of York.

Claire:

> I like Liz (think it was Liz)'s suggestion of working in the Bacon quote. I don't think I've ever seen it in its original form - only Rosemary Sutcliff's paraphrase of it, which was something like "... the memory of Richard III lay like lees at the bottom of a wine cup, so that one only had to tap the glass for it to rise up and permeate the whole".
>
Carol responds:

I provided Bacon's actual words the other day, but I'll repeat them here: "The memory of king Richard was so strong [in the North], that it lay like lees at the bottom of men's hearts; and, if the vessel was but stirred, it would come up."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q2W1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA65&dq=Bacon+Henry+VII+%22lay+like+lees%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_U2FUY2HJ6L3igLt7oGgDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Bacon%20Henry%20VII%20%22lay%20like%20lees%22&f=false

I can't find the quotation in the original spelling because the 1616 versions on Google Books are incomplete, but those are his words as rendered in all modern versions of the book (and as quoted in many other places). Bacon also, despite believing that Richard killed his nephews (he mistakenly took More's fanciful story as what Henry VII "gave out" and passed on that misconception to posterity), called Richard "a prince in military virtue approved, jealous of the honor of the English nation, and likewise a good law-maker for the ease and solace of the common people" (odd traits in combination with the "cruelties and parricides(!)" that Bacon also attributes to him--there's an echo of More's "wise men deem" in his assertion that "in the opinion of wise men" those virtues were "feigned and affected."

As H. G. Hanbury states in an article in The American Journal of Legal History, "it is difficult to imagine a ruler who was at once solicitous of the common people, and yet guilty of cruelties and parricides," and with regard to historians such as Gairdner who follow Bacon here, he comments, "Posterity may well be baffled by the psychological notions of eminent historians." Amen to both comments.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/844148?uid=3739704&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=380063193&uid=380063183&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21101982669913

The article is free if you register at JSTOR.

Carol

Yes, like brothers, cousins can be a cross to bear!

On May 4, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



But Sandra, London IS easy to get to - for some of us! If you don't like that how about Colchester? (Said she who lives there.)

Liz

P.S. Sorry about the husband's cousin but I don't think Richard would hold it against you

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013, 22:52
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnýt go to all the trouble of London, thatýs for sure. Canýt abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!

BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandýs, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heýs not even MY cousin!

Sandra

From: emmali1956
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting

Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 7:19 PM
Subject: Bacon on Richard III (Was: Special
General Meeting)


> The actual wording (modern spelling) was "late mercifully reigning upon
> us,"

Yeah, I know, but most sources seem to translate it now as "over".

> which I like because (for me) it conjures up an image of Richard's rule as
> a gentle rain (reign/rain) falling upon the citizens of York.

I hadn't thought of it like that - that's a nice idea. I hope he was a
gentle rain and not a thin drizzle.

> I provided Bacon's actual words the other day, but I'll repeat them here:
> "The memory of king Richard was so strong [in the North], that it lay like
> lees at the bottom of men's hearts; and, if the vessel was but stirred, it
> would come up."

Also nice and epitaph-worthy and, as Liz said, clearly still true.

> As H. G. Hanbury states in an article in The American Journal of Legal
> History, "it is difficult to imagine a ruler who was at once solicitous of
> the common people, and yet guilty of cruelties and parricides,"

I think I could imagine it in the short term - but Richard's history in the
north showed that he had always been solicitorus of the poor even when it
wasn't particularly to his advantage, showing that it wasn't just an act he
was putting on once he was king.

Claire saidL

I like Liz (think it was Liz)'s suggestion of working in the Bacon quote. 

 
Liz replied: Nope, wasn't me but it sounds good

To all

This is the official forum which has a link from the main website. I set it up a long time ago when I looked after the website originally.

Regards,

Neil



On 4 May 2013, at 19:07, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Yes, I'm a member of that forum, by virtue of my membership in the American
> Branch. The larger forum, I thought, is sponsored by the parent Society in
> England, as is the Richard III Society Facebook page. Please correct me if
> I'm wrong
>
> I'm not sure how much "prodding" the American branch through its forum
> would impact the parent Society.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> It's another Yahoo group, called Richard3
>>
>> You need to be a member of the Society, and I think it's run by the
>> American Branch. I joined so long ago I can't remember how I did it.
>>
>> My 'Forum' folder contains 4000+ e-mails, and in the same time that
>> one has only received some 300.
>>
>> As I understand it, this list is open to anyone who is interested in
>> the subject and not just wanting to 'stir'.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Christine
>>
>>
>> Quoting SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>:
>>
>>> I second the query, A J.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: A J Hibbard
>>> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:23 PM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>>>
>>> This isn't the Society's list? Where does one find the "internal list?"
>>>
>>> A J
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thanks for the clarification.

A J


On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> To all
>
> This is the official forum which has a link from the main website. I set
> it up a long time ago when I looked after the website originally.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>
> On 4 May 2013, at 19:07, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm a member of that forum, by virtue of my membership in the
> American
> > Branch. The larger forum, I thought, is sponsored by the parent Society
> in
> > England, as is the Richard III Society Facebook page. Please correct me
> if
> > I'm wrong
> >
> > I'm not sure how much "prodding" the American branch through its forum
> > would impact the parent Society.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Christine Headley <lists@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's another Yahoo group, called Richard3
> >>
> >> You need to be a member of the Society, and I think it's run by the
> >> American Branch. I joined so long ago I can't remember how I did it.
> >>
> >> My 'Forum' folder contains 4000+ e-mails, and in the same time that
> >> one has only received some 300.
> >>
> >> As I understand it, this list is open to anyone who is interested in
> >> the subject and not just wanting to 'stir'.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >> Christine
> >>
> >>
> >> Quoting SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>:
> >>
> >>> I second the query, A J.
> >>>
> >>> Sandra
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: A J Hibbard
> >>> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:23 PM
> >>> To:
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >>>
> >>> This isn't the Society's list? Where does one find the "internal list?"
> >>>
> >>> A J
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

The trouble with getting form Colchester to anywhere else (by train I haven't had a car for about two and a half years) is that you have to go into London and then out again - I didn't go to the Leicester conference because I'd have had to get up about 5am since  I didn't have the money to stay over the night before.    If I did stay over, then travelling after work from London to most places wouldn't be too difficult.
 
An e vote or a postal ballot would be good since I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't get there regardless of venue, for various reasons.
 
You daughter married a Stanley?  I can only sympathise.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013, 19:17
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

 
Hi Liz. Colchester? Look, I'm a lazy so and so. So it's an e-ballot for me, if possible. I do at least have the energy to do that. <g> Mind you, we always stick a pin in a map and see where it lands...

As for my husband's cousin and the car park. I'm still gutted. And my daughter's married name is Stanley. Same lot, I'm given to understand. How am I ever going to live down the shame????? I think even Richard would be giving me sideways looks by now. One more transgression and I'll be getting the sternly wagged finger and a thumb jerked toward the Tower. And my lands confiscated. So that's one pocket-handkerchief back garden in the royal pocket.

Sandra

From: liz williams
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 6:57 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

But Sandra, London IS easy to get to - for some of us! If you don't like that how about Colchester? (Said she who lives there.)

Liz

P.S. Sorry about the husband's cousin but I don't think Richard would hold it against you

Thank you, Paul.  We in the Australasian and New Zealand branches suggested a few years ago to get at least a proxy vote, as for geographical reasons it is for our membership impossible to take part in any General Meetings in any substantial numbers. 

Just for clarity: unlike the American members, we are members of the Society the same way members in the UK are, with membership number and direct posting of the publications. 

Unfortunately our motion did not get a majority at an Annual General Meeting, which none of our members could attend.  We would welcome an online vote in general.

Cheers,

Dorothea




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 4 May 2013 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


I would almost put money on it being London, if it is agreed to by the
committee of course.
But for me the principal of a small minority deciding everything for the
Society membership has always been something that angers me, being so
undemocratic. In this day and age an on line vote would be far more
democratic, and reach a far larger number of members, and little cost to
any.
Paul

On 03/05/2013 22:52, SandraMachin wrote:
> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldn't go to all the trouble of London, that's for sure. Can't abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
>
> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husband's, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And he's not even MY cousin!
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: emmali1956
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Dorothea says: Thank you, Paul. We in the Australasian and New Zealand branches suggested a few years ago to get at least a proxy vote, as for geographical reasons it is for our membership impossible to take part in any General Meetings in any substantial numbers.

Just for clarity: unlike the American members, we are members of the Society the same way members in the UK are, with membership number and direct posting of the publications.

Unfortunately our motion did not get a majority at an Annual General Meeting, which none of our members could attend. We would welcome an online vote in general.



Sandra responds: I totally agree with this. Everyone in the Society should have a say, and as we cannot all attend meetings, AGMs or otherwise, then our say has to be registered by other means, postal and/or e-votes. Important decisions and changes should be up to everyone, not just a few. The Society consists of all of us, and it should move with the times. In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief. Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved. It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be forgotten.

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to
> be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in
> the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief.
> Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here
> now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved.
> It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be
> forgotten.

The Society always did have a rather cavalier attitude to members who
weren't wealthy professionals. I don't know if it's still the case, but
when I was a member before, in the late 70s and early 80s, there was one
annual subscription-renewal date, and if you didn't have the (very
expensive) fee available on that day, then stuff you. If it took you ten
months to be able to afford the fee, they would still charge you a whole
year's membership fee for the remaining two months (but not, as far as I
remember, provide the publications from the period you'd missed).

It was the main reason I let my original membership lapse - I was too poor
to be able to guarantee coming up with that sort of money on demand, and I
got fed up with being charged a full year's money for a few months of
membership.

This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.

A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.

As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.

Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!

Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.

Neil

On 5 May 2013, at 11:47, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: SandraMachin
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to
> > be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in
> > the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief.
> > Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here
> > now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved.
> > It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be
> > forgotten.
>
> The Society always did have a rather cavalier attitude to members who
> weren't wealthy professionals. I don't know if it's still the case, but
> when I was a member before, in the late 70s and early 80s, there was one
> annual subscription-renewal date, and if you didn't have the (very
> expensive) fee available on that day, then stuff you. If it took you ten
> months to be able to afford the fee, they would still charge you a whole
> year's membership fee for the remaining two months (but not, as far as I
> remember, provide the publications from the period you'd missed).
>
> It was the main reason I let my original membership lapse - I was too poor
> to be able to guarantee coming up with that sort of money on demand, and I
> got fed up with being charged a full year's money for a few months of
> membership.
>
>

Hi, Neil 

I re-joined the Society (after a number of years away  and I had been a member of the Canadian Branch in the 1980's) last September, when the exciting news broke. So that would have been about 1 month before the usual renewal date. I got the current issue of the Bulletin in my membership package and a renewal which is effective until this October, 2013. So I think that is more than fair.



I've got more or less the same problem you complain about re: postage in reverse, of course. The cost of getting materials from the UK is very expensive; the result is that while the books from the Society are reasonably priced, the shipping cost really makes much of the material prohibitively expensive. I bought two substantial shipments of interesting Ricardian materials from the Society last Fall (including Harleian MSS. 433), but I am hoping to be able to avoid buying much for a few years, till I replenish my bank account! J



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Neil Trump
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting





This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.

A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.

As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.

Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!

Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.

Neil



_____

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132valvs7(gid$0b3f7e72-b57b-11e2-bb5f-77db1a607748,st$1367755084885436,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121kfsos1,aid$4CCRCWKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____

<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132valvs7(gid$0b3f7e72-b57b-11e2-bb5f-77db1a607748,st$1367755084885436,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1211095bk,aid$QlmRCWKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbjlva3Q1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NzU1MDg0> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35147/stime=1367755084/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

HI Johanne,

I know that on both sides of the pond that postage rates have soared the last few years and this is probably putting a strain on many other various subscriptions as well. I think over here we still offer a surface route to the US if you are purchasing goods like books etc which have volume and weight which can keep costs down. Unfortunately for me (management says otherwise!) my collecting of items from the US has plummeted by 95%. There aren't any cheap surface options available now as everything is sent by air, including the USPS.

I can only see postage costs increasing further the next few years until someone offers the cheaper surface option again.

Neil



On 5 May 2013, at 13:20, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hi, Neil 
>
> I re-joined the Society (after a number of years away  and I had been a member of the Canadian Branch in the 1980's) last September, when the exciting news broke. So that would have been about 1 month before the usual renewal date. I got the current issue of the Bulletin in my membership package and a renewal which is effective until this October, 2013. So I think that is more than fair.
>
> I've got more or less the same problem you complain about re: postage in reverse, of course. The cost of getting materials from the UK is very expensive; the result is that while the books from the Society are reasonably priced, the shipping cost really makes much of the material prohibitively expensive. I bought two substantial shipments of interesting Ricardian materials from the Society last Fall (including Harleian MSS. 433), but I am hoping to be able to avoid buying much for a few years, till I replenish my bank account! J
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Neil Trump
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:58 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.
>
> A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.
>
> As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.
>
> Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!
>
> Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.
>
> Neil
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132valvs7(gid$0b3f7e72-b57b-11e2-bb5f-77db1a607748,st$1367755084885436,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121kfsos1,aid$4CCRCWKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132valvs7(gid$0b3f7e72-b57b-11e2-bb5f-77db1a607748,st$1367755084885436,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1211095bk,aid$QlmRCWKL4Mw-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbjlva3Q1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NzU1MDg0> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> Daily Digest " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe> Unsubscribe " <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use " <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId=35147/stime=1367755084/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for the explanation, Neil. I've often thought that the Bulletin must be very expensive to produce in printed form. Would it help were you to ask members if they wanted to 'opt out' on receiving it in hardcopy and having it just digitally (it might actually be easier to search back issues). You know, like the banks now do for their printed statements? I'd have thought that most of us with an online facility would be happy to see our money going on things other than printing?
 
Just a suggestion. H (who thinks your subscription is now quite low compared with other online historical and genealogical facilities) 


________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:57
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


 

This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.

A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.

As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.

Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!

Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.

Neil

On 5 May 2013, at 11:47, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: SandraMachin
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:56 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to
> > be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in
> > the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief.
> > Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here
> > now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved.
> > It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be
> > forgotten.
>
> The Society always did have a rather cavalier attitude to members who
> weren't wealthy professionals. I don't know if it's still the case, but
> when I was a member before, in the late 70s and early 80s, there was one
> annual subscription-renewal date, and if you didn't have the (very
> expensive) fee available on that day, then stuff you. If it took you ten
> months to be able to afford the fee, they would still charge you a whole
> year's membership fee for the remaining two months (but not, as far as I
> remember, provide the publications from the period you'd missed).
>
> It was the main reason I let my original membership lapse - I was too poor
> to be able to guarantee coming up with that sort of money on demand, and I
> got fed up with being charged a full year's money for a few months of
> membership.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> There aren't any cheap surface options available now as everything is sent
> by air, including the USPS.

Be aware, however, of the flat-rate International Priority Mail boxes from
the US, which are quite a good deal. It costs quite a lot for one box but
they're fairly large and as much as you can cram into one all goes for the
one flat-rate price, so it might be worth UK members clubbing together to
fill a box.

It costs $60.95 - which I think is about £40 - for a box either 23-11/16" by
11-3/4" by 3" or 12" by 12" by 5½". And they don't seem to complain if the
box is bulging at the seams a bit and held together by hope and gaffer tape.

Hi Hilary,

Digital is a possible answer to any club, society, publishing house etc but I personally have my reservations and these are mine and I don't speak for the society here.

If you offer hardcopy and electronic versions then you are going to find that the hardcopy version will start to cost more to print as the runs are smaller but the associated costs are not, so in fact you could be looking at a membership fee which starts to increase.

Then with the electronic version how do you manage this to a level that is secure, especially for the people behind it doing all the hard prep work for you?

If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case will be at a financial loss.

Also, if one person had the membership they could print of all or part of the electronic version and pass on to other people/members, again disadvantaging the people behind the organisation.

You could of course set up parameters whereby the member elects to have the publication accessed online by a nominated IP address from one PC/laptop only, that still doesn't stop people printing, then you could add a read only facility and stop people printing. At this point people might think that is a draconian option, but what do you do to safeguard membership of any organisation to stop membership decline, not just the society.

Then once you have two options it will then start to cost more to administer both as some will want either hard or digital versions and some will want both.

With regards to previous publications, rather than making them fully available to everyone, the real option here is to have an online index of everything printed historically and then charge a fee if someone wants a particular article. To be fair, members do dip in and out of subscribing over the years and why should those that were not a member for say a certain copy in the past then get free access to it later when they are a member again?

At the end of the day we all subscribe to something we support and those funds are used to produce a publication and build up funds to support other activities, as in the R3 Soc. these funds go towards books and more recently the Leicester project, all good stuff and we couldn't do this if we had as many members as possible paying what is a realistic cost.

If anyone knows of an organisation that has successfully gone this route and not lost membership then please let me know as it may then be worth looking at.

Regards,

Neil





On 5 May 2013, at 13:42, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation, Neil. I've often thought that the Bulletin must be very expensive to produce in printed form. Would it help were you to ask members if they wanted to 'opt out' on receiving it in hardcopy and having it just digitally (it might actually be easier to search back issues). You know, like the banks now do for their printed statements? I'd have thought that most of us with an online facility would be happy to see our money going on things other than printing?
>
> Just a suggestion. H (who thinks your subscription is now quite low compared with other online historical and genealogical facilities)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:57
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
>
> This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.
>
> A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.
>
> As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.
>
> Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!
>
> Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.
>
> Neil
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 11:47, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > From: SandraMachin
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > > In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to
> > > be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in
> > > the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief.
> > > Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here
> > > now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved.
> > > It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be
> > > forgotten.
> >
> > The Society always did have a rather cavalier attitude to members who
> > weren't wealthy professionals. I don't know if it's still the case, but
> > when I was a member before, in the late 70s and early 80s, there was one
> > annual subscription-renewal date, and if you didn't have the (very
> > expensive) fee available on that day, then stuff you. If it took you ten
> > months to be able to afford the fee, they would still charge you a whole
> > year's membership fee for the remaining two months (but not, as far as I
> > remember, provide the publications from the period you'd missed).
> >
> > It was the main reason I let my original membership lapse - I was too poor
> > to be able to guarantee coming up with that sort of money on demand, and I
> > got fed up with being charged a full year's money for a few months of
> > membership.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Claire,

Thanks for the info re the PMB's, I was aware of the plus side of them but a lot of my collecting is done via eBay for mostly single items and this is where I am at a disadvantage.

Regards,

Neil



On 5 May 2013, at 14:23, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > There aren't any cheap surface options available now as everything is sent
> > by air, including the USPS.
>
> Be aware, however, of the flat-rate International Priority Mail boxes from
> the US, which are quite a good deal. It costs quite a lot for one box but
> they're fairly large and as much as you can cram into one all goes for the
> one flat-rate price, so it might be worth UK members clubbing together to
> fill a box.
>
> It costs $60.95 - which I think is about £40 - for a box either 23-11/16" by
> 11-3/4" by 3" or 12" by 12" by 5½". And they don't seem to complain if the
> box is bulging at the seams a bit and held together by hope and gaffer tape.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could
> subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> will be at a financial loss.

People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
would pay extra just to show their support.


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Claire M Jordan

http://www.whitehound.co.uk/, comprizing:

true story of Scots comedy actor Eric "Wee Burney" Cullen, victim of
"most appalling miscarriage of justice ever"

extensive fan-fiction pages, including a Britpicker's Guide and a how-to
guide to operating the editing facilities on FanFiction.net

guide to care of pet rats and of Ship, Black or Roof rat Rattus rattus,
with photographs and cartoons

<:3 )~~~ + <:3==)3~~~ =

<:3 )~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=):~~
<:3=):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 )~~ <:3 )~~
<:3 )~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3=):~~

I did not realize that non UK members were in a different class. These days, with instant communication, I would think an electronic vote would be easier for everyone.

On May 5, 2013, at 3:56 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin@...>> wrote:



Dorothea says: Thank you, Paul. We in the Australasian and New Zealand branches suggested a few years ago to get at least a proxy vote, as for geographical reasons it is for our membership impossible to take part in any General Meetings in any substantial numbers.

Just for clarity: unlike the American members, we are members of the Society the same way members in the UK are, with membership number and direct posting of the publications.

Unfortunately our motion did not get a majority at an Annual General Meeting, which none of our members could attend. We would welcome an online vote in general.

Sandra responds: I totally agree with this. Everyone in the Society should have a say, and as we cannot all attend meetings, AGMs or otherwise, then our say has to be registered by other means, postal and/or e-votes. Important decisions and changes should be up to everyone, not just a few. The Society consists of all of us, and it should move with the times. In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief. Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved. It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be forgotten.

There's some merit in Claire's suggestion. In a way, with the Ricardian,
by restricting access, the Society is cutting off its nose, or at least
hindering others from using the good research they've published.

I live 20 minutes away from an excellent University library. For my
previous historical research, I've been able to find almost everything I've
ever needed. They don't, however, have the Ricardian in their collection,
and WorldCat tells me the closest location that does is in Indiana or
Michigan (so not even, apparently, is there a collection in Chicago (on the
way, for me, to Indiana & Michigan).

I don't imagine that the lack of accessibility does much, either, for
professional historians who need to have their work visible and available
for others to cite.

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person
> could
> > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> > will be at a financial loss.
>
> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
> would pay extra just to show their support.
>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> Claire M Jordan
>
> http://www.whitehound.co.uk/, comprizing:
>
> true story of Scots comedy actor Eric "Wee Burney" Cullen, victim of
> "most appalling miscarriage of justice ever"
>
> extensive fan-fiction pages, including a Britpicker's Guide and a how-to
> guide to operating the editing facilities on FanFiction.net
>
> guide to care of pet rats and of Ship, Black or Roof rat Rattus rattus,
> with photographs and cartoons
>
> <:3 )~~~ + <:3==)3~~~ =
>
> <:3 )~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=):~~
> <:3=):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 )~~ <:3 )~~
> <:3 )~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3=):~~
>
>
>

Agreed, Claire. I certainly would.
Sandra

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
would pay extra just to show their support.



From: Neil Trump
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

> If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could
> subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> will be at a financial loss.

Perhaps the Society could make old Ricardians available through a service
like JStor, where one can either subscribe, or download individual articles
on a pay-per-use basis.

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> There's some merit in Claire's suggestion. In a way, with the Ricardian,
> by restricting access, the Society is cutting off its nose, or at least
> hindering others from using the good research they've published.
>
> I live 20 minutes away from an excellent University library. For my
> previous historical research, I've been able to find almost everything I've
> ever needed. They don't, however, have the Ricardian in their collection,
> and WorldCat tells me the closest location that does is in Indiana or
> Michigan (so not even, apparently, is there a collection in Chicago (on the
> way, for me, to Indiana & Michigan).
>
> I don't imagine that the lack of accessibility does much, either, for
> professional historians who need to have their work visible and available
> for others to cite.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> From: Neil Trump
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>> > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person
>> could
>> > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
>> > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
>> > will be at a financial loss.
>>
>> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very*
>> interested
>> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access
>> to
>> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested
>> donation
>> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and
>> some
>> would pay extra just to show their support.
>>
>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>
>> Claire M Jordan
>>
>> http://www.whitehound.co.uk/, comprizing:
>>
>> true story of Scots comedy actor Eric "Wee Burney" Cullen, victim of
>> "most appalling miscarriage of justice ever"
>>
>> extensive fan-fiction pages, including a Britpicker's Guide and a how-to
>> guide to operating the editing facilities on FanFiction.net
>>
>> guide to care of pet rats and of Ship, Black or Roof rat Rattus rattus,
>> with photographs and cartoons
>>
>> <:3 )~~~ + <:3==)3~~~ =
>>
>> <:3 )~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=):~~
>> <:3=):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 )~~ <:3 )~~
>> <:3 )~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3=):~~
>>
>>
>>
>
>

That is an excellent idea AJ...eileen

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the Society could make old Ricardians available through a service
> like JStor, where one can either subscribe, or download individual articles
> on a pay-per-use basis.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:12 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > There's some merit in Claire's suggestion. In a way, with the Ricardian,
> > by restricting access, the Society is cutting off its nose, or at least
> > hindering others from using the good research they've published.
> >
> > I live 20 minutes away from an excellent University library. For my
> > previous historical research, I've been able to find almost everything I've
> > ever needed. They don't, however, have the Ricardian in their collection,
> > and WorldCat tells me the closest location that does is in Indiana or
> > Michigan (so not even, apparently, is there a collection in Chicago (on the
> > way, for me, to Indiana & Michigan).
> >
> > I don't imagine that the lack of accessibility does much, either, for
> > professional historians who need to have their work visible and available
> > for others to cite.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Neil Trump
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >>
> >> > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person
> >> could
> >> > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> >> > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> >> > will be at a financial loss.
> >>
> >> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very*
> >> interested
> >> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access
> >> to
> >> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested
> >> donation
> >> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and
> >> some
> >> would pay extra just to show their support.
> >>
> >> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >>
> >> Claire M Jordan
> >>
> >> http://www.whitehound.co.uk/, comprizing:
> >>
> >> true story of Scots comedy actor Eric "Wee Burney" Cullen, victim of
> >> "most appalling miscarriage of justice ever"
> >>
> >> extensive fan-fiction pages, including a Britpicker's Guide and a how-to
> >> guide to operating the editing facilities on FanFiction.net
> >>
> >> guide to care of pet rats and of Ship, Black or Roof rat Rattus rattus,
> >> with photographs and cartoons
> >>
> >> <:3 )~~~ + <:3==)3~~~ =
> >>
> >> <:3 )~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=):~~
> >> <:3=):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 )~~ <:3 )~~
> >> <:3 )~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3=):~~
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I agree; that would be excellent! I don't know any site to get old
Ricardians, since I'm off in the hinterlands of Nova Scotia. J



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting





That is an excellent idea AJ...eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , A J Hibbard
<ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the Society could make old Ricardians available through a service
> like JStor, where one can either subscribe, or download individual
articles
> on a pay-per-use basis.
>
> A J
>
>


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbjI2ZHQ5B
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2Nzc2Mzk3NA--> Visit Your Group

MARKETPLACE


<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=be300bdc-b58f-11e2-83c0-6b257f46823d&T=17pbehrvp
%2fX%3d1367763975%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2f
Y%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1739858724%2fH%3dc2VydmVJZD0iYmUzMDBiZGMtYjU4Zi0xMWUyLTgzYzA
tNmIyNTdmNDY4MjNkIiBzaXRlSWQ9IjQ0NTI1NTEiIHRTdG1wPSIxMzY3NzYzOTc1MDMwOTI3IiA
-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d0527C10A&U=1282qrpr8%2fN%3d2Bd1Q2KL5QY-%2fC%3d-2%2f
D%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0>
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132i02qik(gid$be300bdc-b58f-11
e2-83c0-6b257f46823d,st$1367763975030927,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1210u2cc1,aid$wM7SNGKL4I0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____


<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=be300bdc-b58f-11e2-83c0-6b257f46823d&T=17pgjdklr
%2fX%3d1367763975%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2f
Y%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2506327230%2fH%3dc2VydmVJZD0iYmUzMDBiZGMtYjU4Zi0xMWUyLTgzYzA
tNmIyNTdmNDY4MjNkIiBzaXRlSWQ9IjQ0NTI1NTEiIHRTdG1wPSIxMzY3NzYzOTc1MDMwOTI3IiA
-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d0527C10A&U=1283dmnr3%2fN%3d1xd1Q2KL5QY-%2fC%3d-2%2f
D%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0>
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132i02qik(gid$be300bdc-b58f-11
e2-83c0-6b257f46823d,st$1367763975030927,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121jo1d0o,aid$M_jSNGKL4I0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____


<http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=be300bdc-b58f-11e2-83c0-6b257f46823d&T=17pj59u7g
%2fX%3d1367763975%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2f
Y%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1469808401%2fH%3dc2VydmVJZD0iYmUzMDBiZGMtYjU4Zi0xMWUyLTgzYzA
tNmIyNTdmNDY4MjNkIiBzaXRlSWQ9IjQ0NTI1NTEiIHRTdG1wPSIxMzY3NzYzOTc1MDMwOTI3IiA
-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d0527C10A&U=128ggu9de%2fN%3d2Rd1Q2KL5QY-%2fC%3d-2%2f
D%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0>
<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132i02qik(gid$be300bdc-b58f-11
e2-83c0-6b257f46823d,st$1367763975030927,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121quktet,aid$piHTNGKL4I0-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcGdhcm5kBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3NzYzOTc0>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=35169/stime=1367763974/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

If as Claire says people that are *very* interested in a subscriptions interest (I don't want to focus this on the Society but any topic) then they should be happy to pay the full amount as any other person that does. To let people pick and choose if they want to pay means that they are not fully committed and supportive. If membership of any topic suddenly declined then you are likely to find the quality of content decline due to less funds being available. It really is a tough discussion as there isn't any real single answer that all will agree on.

There are a lot of people on this forum that are very knowledgeable about our topic, why are they not members or even donating to a good cause, even just a small amount?

With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will plummet.

As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's model works and had nil impact then please let me know.

Regards,

Neil


On 5 May 2013, at 15:12, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> There's some merit in Claire's suggestion. In a way, with the Ricardian,
> by restricting access, the Society is cutting off its nose, or at least
> hindering others from using the good research they've published.
>
> I live 20 minutes away from an excellent University library. For my
> previous historical research, I've been able to find almost everything I've
> ever needed. They don't, however, have the Ricardian in their collection,
> and WorldCat tells me the closest location that does is in Indiana or
> Michigan (so not even, apparently, is there a collection in Chicago (on the
> way, for me, to Indiana & Michigan).
>
> I don't imagine that the lack of accessibility does much, either, for
> professional historians who need to have their work visible and available
> for others to cite.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Claire M Jordan
> <whitehound@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> From: Neil Trump
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>>
>>> If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person
>> could
>>> subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
>>> publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
>>> will be at a financial loss.
>>
>> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
>> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
>> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
>> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
>> would pay extra just to show their support.
>>
>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>
>> Claire M Jordan
>>
>> http://www.whitehound.co.uk/, comprizing:
>>
>> true story of Scots comedy actor Eric "Wee Burney" Cullen, victim of
>> "most appalling miscarriage of justice ever"
>>
>> extensive fan-fiction pages, including a Britpicker's Guide and a how-to
>> guide to operating the editing facilities on FanFiction.net
>>
>> guide to care of pet rats and of Ship, Black or Roof rat Rattus rattus,
>> with photographs and cartoons
>>
>> <:3 )~~~ + <:3==)3~~~ =
>>
>> <:3 )~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=):~~
>> <:3=):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 )~~ <:3 )~~
>> <:3 )~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3=):~~
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Sandra,

I don't know if you are a member of the Society or not but if the Society made available to all the content of past journals on a fixed cost, would you pay for a specific item of interest? The cost would have to be representative of the work involved to get it to a member but it is another means of revenue


On 5 May 2013, at 15:13, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> Agreed, Claire. I certainly would.
> Sandra
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
> would pay extra just to show their support.
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could
> > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> > will be at a financial loss.
>
>
>
>

Hi Neil -

My suggestion was specifically to make existing content in the old
Ricardians more accessible to scholars. It was not meant as a suggestion
to offer varying levels of current membership/subscription.

That said, what I know about academics is that they are going to aim first
to publish in a peer-reviewed journal with a wide distribution, where their
work will be seen, discussed & cited. So perhaps something to consider for
the future.

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> If as Claire says people that are *very* interested in a subscriptions
> interest (I don't want to focus this on the Society but any topic) then
> they should be happy to pay the full amount as any other person that does.
> To let people pick and choose if they want to pay means that they are not
> fully committed and supportive. If membership of any topic suddenly
> declined then you are likely to find the quality of content decline due to
> less funds being available. It really is a tough discussion as there isn't
> any real single answer that all will agree on.
>
> There are a lot of people on this forum that are very knowledgeable about
> our topic, why are they not members or even donating to a good cause, even
> just a small amount?
>
> With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is ý40 a year, this
> means a group of 12 people would generate ý480. If one person joins that is
> a guaranteed ý40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
> think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
> and those that do will not pay the equivalent of ý10 for that quarter or
> whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
> plummet.
>
> As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> model works and had nil impact then please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 15:12, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > There's some merit in Claire's suggestion. In a way, with the Ricardian,
> > by restricting access, the Society is cutting off its nose, or at least
> > hindering others from using the good research they've published.
> >
> > I live 20 minutes away from an excellent University library. For my
> > previous historical research, I've been able to find almost everything
> I've
> > ever needed. They don't, however, have the Ricardian in their collection,
> > and WorldCat tells me the closest location that does is in Indiana or
> > Michigan (so not even, apparently, is there a collection in Chicago (on
> the
> > way, for me, to Indiana & Michigan).
> >
> > I don't imagine that the lack of accessibility does much, either, for
> > professional historians who need to have their work visible and available
> > for others to cite.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Claire M Jordan
> > <whitehound@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Neil Trump
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >>
> >>> If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person
> >> could
> >>> subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> >>> publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> >>> will be at a financial loss.
> >>
> >> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very*
> interested
> >> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access
> to
> >> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested
> donation
> >> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and
> some
> >> would pay extra just to show their support.
> >>
> >> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> >>
> >> Claire M Jordan
> >>
> >> http://www.whitehound.co.uk/, comprizing:
> >>
> >> true story of Scots comedy actor Eric "Wee Burney" Cullen, victim of
> >> "most appalling miscarriage of justice ever"
> >>
> >> extensive fan-fiction pages, including a Britpicker's Guide and a how-to
> >> guide to operating the editing facilities on FanFiction.net
> >>
> >> guide to care of pet rats and of Ship, Black or Roof rat Rattus rattus,
> >> with photographs and cartoons
> >>
> >> <:3 )~~~ + <:3==)3~~~ =
> >>
> >> <:3 )~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=):~~
> >> <:3=):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3 )~~ <:3 )~~
> >> <:3 )~~ <:3 ):~~ <:3=)~~ <:3=):~~
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I absolutely agree with you in making specific content of old R3 publications available to everyone, as I said in another email, on a fixed cost system. There are winners on both sides, the Society gains by another revenue stream and the individual may be doing specific research on a topic and an article 20 years ago may be what they are looking for.

I think this topic has split slightly on current membership concepts and historic archive data which is confusing the thread.

Neil



On 5 May 2013, at 15:59, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Hi Neil -
>
> My suggestion was specifically to make existing content in the old
> Ricardians more accessible to scholars. It was not meant as a suggestion
> to offer varying levels of current membership/subscription.
>
> That said, what I know about academics is that they are going to aim first
> to publish in a peer-reviewed journal with a wide distribution, where their
> work will be seen, discussed & cited. So perhaps something to consider for
> the future.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> If as Claire says people that are *very* interested in a subscriptions
>> interest (I don't want to focus this on the Society but any topic) then
>> they should be happy to pay the full amount as any other person that does..
>> To let people pick and choose if they want to pay means that they are not
>> fully committed and supportive. If membership of any topic suddenly
>> declined then you are likely to find the quality of content decline due to
>> less funds being available. It really is a tough discussion as there isn't
>> any real single answer that all will agree on.
>>
>> There are a lot of people on this forum that are very knowledgeable about
>> our topic, why are they not members or even donating to a good cause, even
>> just a small amount?
>>
>> With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is ý40 a year, this
>> means a group of 12 people would generate ý480. If one person joins tha

Not Sandra, but I'd be happy to pay for specific articles of interest.

Right now it looks as if the Society is making progress on part of its
mission statement "research into the life and times of Richard III," but by
limiting accessibility to that research, it is not as successful with the
other portion of its mission, namely securing a reassessment "of the
material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in
English history."

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sandra,
>
> I don't know if you are a member of the Society or not but if the Society
> made available to all the content of past journals on a fixed cost, would
> you pay for a specific item of interest? The cost would have to be
> representative of the work involved to get it to a member but it is another
> means of revenue
>
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 15:13, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, Claire. I certainly would.
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:04 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> >
> > People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very*
> interested
> > in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access
> to
> > documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested
> donation
> > to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and
> some
> > would pay extra just to show their support.
> >
> > From: Neil Trump
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person
> could
> > > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> > > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this
> case
> > > will be at a financial loss.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Special General Meeting


> I agree; that would be excellent! I don't know any site to get old
Ricardians, since I'm off in the hinterlands of Nova Scotia. J

Indeed. And if our goal is to promote a fair assessment of Richard's reign
(and we know that "fair" is going to amount to "favourable in nearly all
cases", because although he wasn't a saint he seems to have done fewer
reprehensible things than almost every other noble of the period), and the
society is producing all these scholarly articles which showcase the true
facts, it's entirely self-defeating to lock those articles away where only
people who are *already* convinced that Richard was a good guy can access
them.

"In my day", she says, showing her age, and I mean the early 1980s,
membership conveyed social benefits which meant people would continue to
join regardless of whether they could get the articles by another route. I
see that it still does to some extent - there's a trip to Beaulieu planned
for London members. The society may feel that doubling as a club would
lower the tone but the more fun something is, the more people will want to
join, and there are a lot of things which are educational *and* fun - a
weekend course on Mediaeval cookery, for example, finishing by eating the
results.

[Holds hand up and admits to having belonged for several years to the
Principlaity of the Far Isles, which is the British end of the Society for
Creative Anachronisms.]

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this
means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is
a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or
whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
plummet.

Na - you suggest on each document that if people don't want to pay the full
£40 they should contribute say £3 per document. Most of them will, and most
of them will end up paying *more* than £40 in dribs and drabs.

> As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> model works and had nil impact then please let me know.

The whole of the shareware system on the internet operates on that basis.
Geneaology websites operate on the basis that you can either buy a monthly
or annual susbcription or you pay £7 for a set number of pay-as-you-go
credits, and they make an absolute fortune: this business model is one of
the most successful on the net.

Yes, Neil, I would pay and I am a member, newly back in the fold after leaving the Society back in about 1974. I've been purchasing back copies of the Ricardian from Amazon and such places. Are you talking a publish on demand' service? Downloading such items online would minimise costs, be instantly received, and produce satisfaction all around. As well as money in the Society coffers. Paypal would be perfect. Of course, this doesn't take into account those who are not on the internet, but rely on the postal service.

Sandra

From: Neil Trump
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


Sandra,

I don't know if you are a member of the Society or not but if the Society made available to all the content of past journals on a fixed cost, would you pay for a specific item of interest? The cost would have to be representative of the work involved to get it to a member but it is another means of revenue

On 5 May 2013, at 15:13, "SandraMachin" <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk> wrote:

> Agreed, Claire. I certainly would.
> Sandra
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:04 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
> People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
> in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
> documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
> to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
> would pay extra just to show their support.
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could
> > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> > will be at a financial loss.

You're right. And a lot of these sites have been able to acquire work formerly done for free by others (such as BMD).  A very clever move. Whether we like it or not (and I hope most do) Richard is now on stage worldwide and it seems wrong that the Society which supported him through years of doubt should have any qualms about charging for research done by those who were devotees long before the latest events. 
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 16:19
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

 

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this
means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is
a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or
whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
plummet.

Na - you suggest on each document that if people don't want to pay the full
£40 they should contribute say £3 per document. Most of them will, and most
of them will end up paying *more* than £40 in dribs and drabs.

> As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> model works and had nil impact then please let me know.

The whole of the shareware system on the internet operates on that basis.
Geneaology websites operate on the basis that you can either buy a monthly
or annual susbcription or you pay £7 for a set number of pay-as-you-go
credits, and they make an absolute fortune: this business model is one of
the most successful on the net.

Claire,

I may have confused the issue, but I'll try and re-phrase, probably come out the same though.

If I take one of my interests of old vintage buses and say a group of 10 of us meet on a regular basis to discuss things and we all belong to an old bus magazine paying 10 lots of dues. They then offer a digital subscription which is a bit cheaper. Sounds great, so one member stays and the rest decline next renewal. Next time we meet we all sit around the PC and enjoy the publication as before and we can print of specific articles for those tan want them. As an individual 9 of us have gained but the magazine has lost out big time. Just to show we are not total meanies we do share the cost of the one person paying. Hope this makes it clearer.

With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12 or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current members.

I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large and people are always seeking their own past. In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of journals?

Neil

On 5 May 2013, at 16:19, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this
> means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is
> a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
> think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
> and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or
> whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
> plummet.
>
> Na - you suggest on each document that if people don't want to pay the full
> £40 they should contribute say £3 per document. Most of them will, and most
> of them will end up paying *more* than £40 in dribs and drabs.
>
> > As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> > model works and had nil impact then please let me know.
>
> The whole of the shareware system on the internet operates on that basis.
> Geneaology websites operate on the basis that you can either buy a monthly
> or annual susbcription or you pay £7 for a set number of pay-as-you-go
> credits, and they make an absolute fortune: this business model is one of
> the most successful on the net.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> If I take one of my interests of old vintage buses and say a group of 10
> of us meet on a regular basis to discuss things and we all belong to an
> old bus magazine paying 10 lots of dues. They then offer a digital
> subscription which is a bit cheaper. Sounds great, so one member stays and
> the rest decline next renewal. Next time we meet we all sit around the PC
> and enjoy the publication as before and we can print of specific articles
> for those tan want them. As an individual 9 of us have gained but the
> magazine has lost out big time. Just to show we are not total meanies we
> do share the cost of the one person paying. Hope this makes it clearer.

Yes, understood, but you probably don't passionately love vintage buses
quite the way people love Richard. And if you and your mates did love
vintage buses that way, and if the magazine was actually contributing to the
rescue and preservation of actual endangered buses instead of just talking
about them, most of them would probably contribute money to rescue the thing
they loved. And *more* people who loved vintage buses but couldn't afford
to pay the full annual rate for the magazine would read it and make a small
voluntary contribution, as much as they could afford, and overall you might
well end up with more money.

Because people love Richard and feel strongly that he has been wronged, the
Society is hovering close to being a charity in terms of people's
willingness to give money to it, so long as they don't feel it's extorting
money from them with a big stick. Think of the Ricardian as equivalent not
to a magazine about vintage buses but to a Save the Endangered Bears
bulletin.

> With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in
> agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12
> or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current
> members.

It would be enough I think just to say that if you're a member you get free
access, at leas tot the eyars you've been a member.

> I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines
> possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large
> and people are always seeking their own past.

So long as you include articles which are not just on Richard but on the
whole late Meddiaeval period lots of people will seek for ancestral
background there. Post some good articled on 15th C York, for example, and
thousands of people will want to read them.

> In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You
> say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of
> journals?

Journals are a separate thing and paid for separately I think. But for
example if you're looking for records on Scotland's People you pay £7 for 30
units. It's free to search, and then the research results will say things
like "There are 45 records which fit these search terms". To view one page
(I think 20 or 30 entries) from the list of results costs one unit, and then
to actually bring up an individual record on screen or download it to your
PC costs five units. Obviously you want to charge a bit more to view
scholarly articles - maybe £2 - £5 per article according to length, or
perhaps e.g. 50p per page. You want it to bring in enough money to pay for
itself and a little extra, without being off-puttingly expensive.

There is a hybrid model on one of the sites Neil. You pay a low annual subscription (say £20), that gives you access to all the news and the research headings. But if you want to read the details (like say the psychoanalysis of Richard in the last bulletin) then you pay a fee to dowload it (say £3). That way members can be selective, but probably end up paying quite a lot. It's clever; I wonder how often I justify paying £3 to the NA as 'not a lot'?  But - it does rely on all members being internet-savvy. Do we know how many members aren't? 



________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 16:54
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


 

Claire,

I may have confused the issue, but I'll try and re-phrase, probably come out the same though.

If I take one of my interests of old vintage buses and say a group of 10 of us meet on a regular basis to discuss things and we all belong to an old bus magazine paying 10 lots of dues. They then offer a digital subscription which is a bit cheaper. Sounds great, so one member stays and the rest decline next renewal. Next time we meet we all sit around the PC and enjoy the publication as before and we can print of specific articles for those tan want them. As an individual 9 of us have gained but the magazine has lost out big time. Just to show we are not total meanies we do share the cost of the one person paying. Hope this makes it clearer.

With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12 or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current members.

I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large and people are always seeking their own past. In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of journals?

Neil

On 5 May 2013, at 16:19, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this
> means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is
> a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
> think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
> and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or
> whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
> plummet.
>
> Na - you suggest on each document that if people don't want to pay the full
> £40 they should contribute say £3 per document. Most of them will, and most
> of them will end up paying *more* than £40 in dribs and drabs.
>
> > As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> > model works and had nil impact then please let me know.
>
> The whole of the shareware system on the internet operates on that basis.
> Geneaology websites operate on the basis that you can either buy a monthly
> or annual susbcription or you pay £7 for a set number of pay-as-you-go
> credits, and they make an absolute fortune: this business model is one of
> the most successful on the net.
>
>

Thanks for your very comprehensive answer Neil.
 
 I agree it's difficult because people will always get round restricted access by using others and you would end up having to have some sort of password system for those who are members and have a right to get at the bulletin. As you say, you have to rely on their 'honour' of not passing this on to others who have not paid a fee; but people are people and you'd probably end up putting up subscriptions to cover these unofficial browsers. I think you'd be too kind in offering both digital and hardcopy versions to the same member.
 
I do, though, think you could make a fair bit of extra money by selling off articles from old bulletins to those who don't want necessarily to be a member but are doing research. Even as a member I'd be quite happy to pay anything up to £10 for documents (perhaps you should offer current members a discount?)from your listed stuff (more if they are long) eg I was looking for one about twenty years' old the other day. To be able to go to a Buy Now button and pay for it by Paypal or creditcard and preferably download it a la National Archives would be great and isn't difficult to build into your website, I would have thought? I have it on mine. It's only right that the Society should be able to cash in on the work that people have done for it, I doubt any would object as we are for a common cause. Given the worldwide interest it could give you those extra funds to manoeuvre.  Thanks again. H


________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 14:46
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


 

Hi Hilary,

Digital is a possible answer to any club, society, publishing house etc but I personally have my reservations and these are mine and I don't speak for the society here.

If you offer hardcopy and electronic versions then you are going to find that the hardcopy version will start to cost more to print as the runs are smaller but the associated costs are not, so in fact you could be looking at a membership fee which starts to increase.

Then with the electronic version how do you manage this to a level that is secure, especially for the people behind it doing all the hard prep work for you?

If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case will be at a financial loss.

Also, if one person had the membership they could print of all or part of the electronic version and pass on to other people/members, again disadvantaging the people behind the organisation.

You could of course set up parameters whereby the member elects to have the publication accessed online by a nominated IP address from one PC/laptop only, that still doesn't stop people printing, then you could add a read only facility and stop people printing. At this point people might think that is a draconian option, but what do you do to safeguard membership of any organisation to stop membership decline, not just the society.

Then once you have two options it will then start to cost more to administer both as some will want either hard or digital versions and some will want both.

With regards to previous publications, rather than making them fully available to everyone, the real option here is to have an online index of everything printed historically and then charge a fee if someone wants a particular article. To be fair, members do dip in and out of subscribing over the years and why should those that were not a member for say a certain copy in the past then get free access to it later when they are a member again?

At the end of the day we all subscribe to something we support and those funds are used to produce a publication and build up funds to support other activities, as in the R3 Soc. these funds go towards books and more recently the Leicester project, all good stuff and we couldn't do this if we had as many members as possible paying what is a realistic cost.

If anyone knows of an organisation that has successfully gone this route and not lost membership then please let me know as it may then be worth looking at.

Regards,

Neil

On 5 May 2013, at 13:42, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the explanation, Neil. I've often thought that the Bulletin must be very expensive to produce in printed form. Would it help were you to ask members if they wanted to 'opt out' on receiving it in hardcopy and having it just digitally (it might actually be easier to search back issues). You know, like the banks now do for their printed statements? I'd have thought that most of us with an online facility would be happy to see our money going on things other than printing?
>
> Just a suggestion. H (who thinks your subscription is now quite low compared with other online historical and genealogical facilities)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Neil Trump <mailto:neil.trump%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:57
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
>
> This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.
>
> A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.
>
> As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.
>
> Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!
>
> Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.
>
> Neil
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 11:47, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > From: SandraMachin
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > > In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to
> > > be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in
> > > the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief.
> > > Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here
> > > now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved.
> > > It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be
> > > forgotten.
> >
> > The Society always did have a rather cavalier attitude to members who
> > weren't wealthy professionals. I don't know if it's still the case, but
> > when I was a member before, in the late 70s and early 80s, there was one
> > annual subscription-renewal date, and if you didn't have the (very
> > expensive) fee available on that day, then stuff you. If it took you ten
> > months to be able to afford the fee, they would still charge you a whole
> > year's membership fee for the remaining two months (but not, as far as I
> > remember, provide the publications from the period you'd missed).
> >
> > It was the main reason I let my original membership lapse - I was too poor
> > to be able to guarantee coming up with that sort of money on demand, and I
> > got fed up with being charged a full year's money for a few months of
> > membership.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn't gone gaga, gives it a green light.
http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.

Sandra

Oh...that is good!....I have to say I share your feeling Sandra...Its actually quite moving...eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn’t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn’t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
>
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Excellent! Almost as good as a Holbein portrait. I hope we'll see this image on a lot of book covers.

Carol

Somehow that is a very moving image. WOW!



Thanks for posting the link.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 1:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard morphed





Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn't gone gaga, gives it a green light.
http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.

Sandra

That is just wonderful!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard morphed



"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasnâ¬"t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
>
> Sandra

Carol responds:

Excellent! Almost as good as a Holbein portrait. I hope we'll see this image on a lot of book covers.

Carol

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the
> reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn't
> gone gaga, gives it a green light.
http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably
spot on.

Oh yes, that's *very* nice - it corrects both the wonky left eye in the NPG
version and the dubious colouring and plastic-ish skin of the
reconstruction. I once did something similar with the NPG and SoA
portraits - but this is better.

Based on the NPG portrait his hair-colour should perhaps be a little
richer - then again this is spot on for the colour as shown in the SoA
version.

Im going to use it as my screensaver....eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> That is just wonderful!
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:52 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard morphed
>
>
>
> "SandraMachin" wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn’t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> > http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
> >
> > Sandra
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Excellent! Almost as good as a Holbein portrait. I hope we'll see this image on a lot of book covers.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>

On 5 May 2013, at 17:23, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>
>
> Yes, understood, but you probably don't passionately love vintage buses
> quite the way people love Richard. And if you and your mates did love
> vintage buses that way, and if the magazine was actually contributing to the
> rescue and preservation of actual endangered buses instead of just talking
> about them, most of them would probably contribute money to rescue the thing
> they loved. And *more* people who loved vintage buses but couldn't afford
> to pay the full annual rate for the magazine would read it and make a small
> voluntary contribution, as much as they could afford, and overall you might
> well end up with more money.
>

People that own old vehicles have a real passion or them, just as much as people here have or Richard, so much so that they can become part of the family. If you meet any old classic vehicle owners you will understand by the way they speak about them.

For myself I was passionate about my bus and others of the same model, so much that I was able to purchase all the spares from the manufacturer when the model ceased to be used by companies. I acquired about 20 tons of parts. I even re-manufacture some parts that are no longer available.

I am active in this hobby with like minded friends, but we feel that trying to find a loop hole in doing something to a magazine in reducing revenue isn't being honest and ethical.

If I couldn't afford the cost of the bus mag then I can't really afford the bus and the associated expenses.

Is it fair that some people that say they can't afford to buy say the bus mag should still have access to it and read it in full and then make whatever small contribution they can to help things continue, which is what I think you are saying? I would feel as someone that pays the full amount a little grieved that I am subsidising others. On this basis I don't see how the magazine could possibly make more money. If people were aware of such an option more people would do the same, I would, but not because I couldn't afford to but on the basis that others can and do.
>
> Because people love Richard and feel strongly that he has been wronged, the
> Society is hovering close to being a charity in terms of people's
> willingness to give money to it, so long as they don't feel it's extorting
> money from them with a big stick. Think of the Ricardian as equivalent not
> to a magazine about vintage buses but to a Save the Endangered Bears
> bulletin.
>
What makes you feel that the Society is extortionate? Is it the cost of the subscription, do you feel it does not give you value for money? Vintage buses are also an endangered lot, there is an old saying in the bus world, ....survival of the fittest! Buses that are in good condition are scrapped and lost forever, at least we have Richard now, mostly anyway.
>
> > With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in
> > agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12
> > or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current
> > members.
>
> It would be enough I think just to say that if you're a member you get free
> access, at leas tot the eyars you've been a member.
>

I believe that even if you are a current member, if there was something you wanted from the past, then you pay for it as anyone else would, if this was a real option by the Society. Why would you want access to material online when you are a member for a said period, you would have the hardcopy already, have I missed something herer?
>
> > I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines
> > possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large
> > and people are always seeking their own past.
>
> So long as you include articles which are not just on Richard but on the
> whole late Meddiaeval period lots of people will seek for ancestral
> background there. Post some good articled on 15th C York, for example, and
> thousands of people will want to read them.
>

Would these articles have been already published by the Soc.? Not sure what you are meaning here. Again, if in the past, yes, make them available, but not for free.
>
> > In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You
> > say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of
> > journals?
>
> Journals are a separate thing and paid for separately I think. But for
> example if you're looking for records on Scotland's People you pay £7 for 30
> units. It's free to search, and then the research results will say things
> like "There are 45 records which fit these search terms". To view one page
> (I think 20 or 30 entries) from the list of results costs one unit, and then
> to actually bring up an individual record on screen or download it to your
> PC costs five units. Obviously you want to charge a bit more to view
> scholarly articles - maybe £2 - £5 per article according to length, or
> perhaps e.g. 50p per page. You want it to bring in enough money to pay for
> itself and a little extra, without being off-puttingly expensive.
>

OK, but this is what I have said all along, make available all past journal material at cost. To expand this along your lines for example, one article £3, four or £10, eight for £15 etc as an example.

You said their journals were a separate issue, but you didn't say what the costs are and how they are delivered etc?

Neil
>
>

OK, then if the cost of individual articles is of a level that it doesn't take that many to rack up a cost of the yearly sub, then it may be just as wise to pay the full amount and get it all.


On 5 May 2013, at 17:05, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> There is a hybrid model on one of the sites Neil. You pay a low annual subscription (say £20), that gives you access to all the news and the research headings. But if you want to read the details (like say the psychoanalysis of Richard in the last bulletin) then you pay a fee to dowload it (say £3). That way members can be selective, but probably end up paying quite a lot. It's clever; I wonder how often I justify paying £3 to the NA as 'not a lot'? But - it does rely on all members being internet-savvy. Do we know how many members aren't?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 16:54
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
>
> Claire,
>
> I may have confused the issue, but I'll try and re-phrase, probably come out the same though.
>
> If I take one of my interests of old vintage buses and say a group of 10 of us meet on a regular basis to discuss things and we all belong to an old bus magazine paying 10 lots of dues. They then offer a digital subscription which is a bit cheaper. Sounds great, so one member stays and the rest decline next renewal. Next time we meet we all sit around the PC and enjoy the publication as before and we can print of specific articles for those tan want them. As an individual 9 of us have gained but the magazine has lost out big time. Just to show we are not total meanies we do share the cost of the one person paying. Hope this makes it clearer.
>
> With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12 or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current members.
>
> I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large and people are always seeking their own past. In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of journals?
>
> Neil
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 16:19, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Neil Trump
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this
> > means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is
> > a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
> > think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
> > and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or
> > whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
> > plummet.
> >
> > Na - you suggest on each document that if people don't want to pay the full
> > £40 they should contribute say £3 per document. Most of them will, and most
> > of them will end up paying *more* than £40 in dribs and drabs.
> >
> > > As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> > > model works and had nil impact then please let me know.
> >
> > The whole of the shareware system on the internet operates on that basis.
> > Geneaology websites operate on the basis that you can either buy a monthly
> > or annual susbcription or you pay £7 for a set number of pay-as-you-go
> > credits, and they make an absolute fortune: this business model is one of
> > the most successful on the net.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Hilary for understanding the problems and possibilities. I did try to promote the ability to sell historic data some years ago when I was on the committee, but they didn't seem enthusiastic at the time. There is only so much you can do when you have the horse at the trough!

Neil



On 5 May 2013, at 16:38, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Thanks for your very comprehensive answer Neil.
>
> I agree it's difficult because people will always get round restricted access by using others and you would end up having to have some sort of password system for those who are members and have a right to get at the bulletin. As you say, you have to rely on their 'honour' of not passing this on to others who have not paid a fee; but people are people and you'd probably end up putting up subscriptions to cover these unofficial browsers. I think you'd be too kind in offering both digital and hardcopy versions to the same member.
>
> I do, though, think you could make a fair bit of extra money by selling off articles from old bulletins to those who don't want necessarily to be a member but are doing research. Even as a member I'd be quite happy to pay anything up to £10 for documents (perhaps you should offer current members a discount?)from your listed stuff (more if they are long) eg I was looking for one about twenty years' old the other day. To be able to go to a Buy Now button and pay for it by Paypal or creditcard and preferably download it a la National Archives would be great and isn't difficult to build into your website, I would have thought? I have it on mine. It's only right that the Society should be able to cash in on the work that people have done for it, I doubt any would object as we are for a common cause. Given the worldwide interest it could give you those extra funds to manoeuvre. Thanks again. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 14:46
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
>
> Hi Hilary,
>
> Digital is a possible answer to any club, society, publishing house etc but I personally have my reservations and these are mine and I don't speak for the society here.
>
> If you offer hardcopy and electronic versions then you are going to find that the hardcopy version will start to cost more to print as the runs are smaller but the associated costs are not, so in fact you could be looking at a membership fee which starts to increase.
>
> Then with the electronic version how do you manage this to a level that is secure, especially for the people behind it doing all the hard prep work for you?
>
> If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case will be at a financial loss.
>
> Also, if one person had the membership they could print of all or part of the electronic version and pass on to other people/members, again disadvantaging the people behind the organisation.
>
> You could of course set up parameters whereby the member elects to have the publication accessed online by a nominated IP address from one PC/laptop only, that still doesn't stop people printing, then you could add a read only facility and stop people printing. At this point people might think that is a draconian option, but what do you do to safeguard membership of any organisation to stop membership decline, not just the society.
>
> Then once you have two options it will then start to cost more to administer both as some will want either hard or digital versions and some will want both.
>
> With regards to previous publications, rather than making them fully available to everyone, the real option here is to have an online index of everything printed historically and then charge a fee if someone wants a particular article. To be fair, members do dip in and out of subscribing over the years and why should those that were not a member for say a certain copy in the past then get free access to it later when they are a member again?
>
> At the end of the day we all subscribe to something we support and those funds are used to produce a publication and build up funds to support other activities, as in the R3 Soc. these funds go towards books and more recently the Leicester project, all good stuff and we couldn't do this if we had as many members as possible paying what is a realistic cost.
>
> If anyone knows of an organisation that has successfully gone this route and not lost membership then please let me know as it may then be worth looking at.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 13:42, Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the explanation, Neil. I've often thought that the Bulletin must be very expensive to produce in printed form. Would it help were you to ask members if they wanted to 'opt out' on receiving it in hardcopy and having it just digitally (it might actually be easier to search back issues). You know, like the banks now do for their printed statements? I'd have thought that most of us with an online facility would be happy to see our money going on things other than printing?
> >
> > Just a suggestion. H (who thinks your subscription is now quite low compared with other online historical and genealogical facilities)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Neil Trump <mailto:neil.trump%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 5 May 2013, 12:57
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This isn't the case any more and hasn't been for as far as I remember. If a member joins part way through the year then they pay for those quarters to the next renewal as far as I remember.
> >
> > A small number of extra journals are published each quarter to cater for the odd one that gets lost in the post etc.
> >
> > As to expense it is about the same for a subscription I have from the US and then I have to add another £8 to have them sent to the UK and I usually get them about two weeks after being available in the US.
> >
> > Another US magazine that I had has a subscription of $38 and to have those six sent to the UK bumped the price up to $85, I had to drop that one because the postage was absolutely ridiculous!
> >
> > Basically it is horses for courses, you'll never please everyone.
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > On 5 May 2013, at 11:47, "Claire M Jordan" <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: SandraMachin
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:56 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> > >
> > > > In this day and age, when communication is so frequently via e-waves, to
> > > > be out-voted simply because you cannot get all your members to the AGM in
> > > > the flesh, is so old-fashioned and undemocratic as to be beyond belief.
> > > > Richard was for the people, not merely his nobles, and if he were here
> > > > now, in the 21st century, he would certainly want us all to be involved.
> > > > It was not the people who let him down in 1485. Perhaps that should not be
> > > > forgotten.
> > >
> > > The Society always did have a rather cavalier attitude to members who
> > > weren't wealthy professionals. I don't know if it's still the case, but
> > > when I was a member before, in the late 70s and early 80s, there was one
> > > annual subscription-renewal date, and if you didn't have the (very
> > > expensive) fee available on that day, then stuff you. If it took you ten
> > > months to be able to afford the fee, they would still charge you a whole
> > > year's membership fee for the remaining two months (but not, as far as I
> > > remember, provide the publications from the period you'd missed).
> > >
> > > It was the main reason I let my original membership lapse - I was too poor
> > > to be able to guarantee coming up with that sort of money on demand, and I
> > > got fed up with being charged a full year's money for a few months of
> > > membership.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



> I am active in this hobby with like minded friends, but we feel that
> trying to find a loop hole in doing something to a magazine in reducing
> revenue isn't being honest and ethical.

Exactly - so if you got the magazine free but it asked for donations, you
would donate - and the wealthier amongst you might well end up donating more
than the original fee.

> If I couldn't afford the cost of the bus mag then I can't really afford
> the bus and the associated expenses.

But if your product is so expensive that many people can't afford it, they
*won't* afford it, so you won't get any money from them. If you make it
possible for them to get it at a price they can afford, they will, and so
you'll get at least some money from them, as opposed to none.

> Is it fair that some people that say they can't afford to buy say the bus
> mag should still have access to it and read it in full and then make
> whatever small contribution they can to help things continue, which is
> what I think you are saying?

Absolutely - it means that people like me who have an income of £100 a week
or less - a *lot* less in some cases - can still get access to information
and do useful research and spread the word, and you still get some money
from us, as opposed to *no* money because we don't have a hope on Earth of
affording the full fee.

Richard believed in supporting the poor - not saying sorry, you can't learn
about me unless you're rich.

> What makes you feel that the Society is extortionate? Is it the cost of
> the subscription, do you feel it does not give you value for money?

It doesn't matter how good value for the money it is if you haven't got the
money - a *Porsche* is probably good value for the money, but I still can't
afford one, especially when I'm scrabbling for money to pay the vet.

I don't even know what the subscription is these days - a friend very kindly
paid it for me as a gift. But I know it was beyond my resources 25 years
ago when I was working for the Telegraph and I doubt it's got
proportionately cheaper.

> So long as you include articles which are not just on Richard but on the
> whole late Meddiaeval period lots of people will seek for ancestral
> background there. Post some good articled on 15th C York, for example, and
> thousands of people will want to read them.
>
> Would these articles have been already published by the Soc.? Not sure
> what you are meaning here. Again, if in the past, yes, make them
> available, but not for free.

Indeed - but keep the cost at a level people can afford. Let non-members
see them too, for a slightly greater but still affordable chance.

Nevertheless, I do think that if you let people see articles for free but
asked for voluntary donations to do so, you'd probably end up with more
money, because nearly everybody would pay soemthing and many people who
could afford to would pay extra.

People are, on average, more honest and generous than you think - a lot of
farms that do pick-your-own just leave a set of scales and a cash box by the
gate, and most people do weigh up and pay up.

> OK, but this is what I have said all along, make available all past
> journal material at cost. To expand this along your lines for example, one
> article £3, four or £10, eight for £15 etc as an example.

That's reasonable, yes.

> You said their journals were a separate issue, but you didn't say what the
> costs are and how they are delivered etc?

Not sure, because I can't afford them. The newsletter of Scotland's People
is free, but Ancestry has a journal you pay to subscribe to.

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> OK, then if the cost of individual articles is of a level that it doesn't
> take that many to rack up a cost of the yearly sub, then it may be just as
> wise to pay the full amount and get it all.

No, because that requires you to be wealthy enough to afford the lump sum.
And it's no good saying "Save up" because if you're constantly having to
scrabble and scrabble in order to eat or keep the house warm or pay for a
bus instead of a miles-long walk then any lump sum you may be building up
will end up being spent on food or fuel or fares, whereas if you pay a
little bit in dribs and drabs you will find it and turn the heating off for
a day or live on toast for a day or do the hour-long walk.

Plus, if you require people to join the Society in order to see the articles
then you are back to requiring people to make a commitment that says they
are already supporters of Richard before they can access the information
which might have *made* them supporters of Richard. If there was a really
good article on Bosworth from Henry VII's viewpoint, how many here would
join a Henry Tudor Society in order to access it? How many would pay £3 to
get it as a one-off?

On 5 May 2013, at 18:42, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > I am active in this hobby with like minded friends, but we feel that
> > trying to find a loop hole in doing something to a magazine in reducing
> > revenue isn't being honest and ethical.
>
> Exactly - so if you got the magazine free but it asked for donations, you
> would donate - and the wealthier amongst you might well end up donating more
> than the original fee.
>
If I had access to a mag free and they asked for donations for what I thought it was worth I know that my contribution would not be any where near the cover cost. As for being of wealth, I am not in that league and if I was I still wouldn't pay more than the cover price, they have set the cover price based on costs/profits and I am happy with that as it means they stay in business and I get to read more mags.

>
> > If I couldn't afford the cost of the bus mag then I can't really afford
> > the bus and the associated expenses.
>
> But if your product is so expensive that many people can't afford it, they
> *won't* afford it, so you won't get any money from them. If you make it
> possible for them to get it at a price they can afford, they will, and so
> you'll get at least some money from them, as opposed to none.
>
This is where it gets down to the intricacy's of a membership. I know where you are coming from so I will expand a bit more. Again, when I was on the committee I asked that we revisit what it actually costs as a baseline figure to service a membership for UK and overseas. I know what those figures were then and I can say that there wasn't a great deal left over which made up the cost we asked members to pay.

I also know that over the years the membership has declined because members like yourself also had to look at their income and decide if the Society was an essential need. So, where this is taking us now is that as this number is growing all the time, if we say let all these people have something for free and they paid say £5 a year, because that is what they can afford, not what it is worth, then it won't be many years before the Society will fold as the outgoings will exceed the income. Then everyone loses out. The product is only expensive if someone can't afford it, to others they may feel it is good value compared to other criteria.

>
> > Is it fair that some people that say they can't afford to buy say the bus
> > mag should still have access to it and read it in full and then make
> > whatever small contribution they can to help things continue, which is
> > what I think you are saying?
>
> Absolutely - it means that people like me who have an income of £100 a week
> or less - a *lot* less in some cases - can still get access to information
> and do useful research and spread the word, and you still get some money
> from us, as opposed to *no* money because we don't have a hope on Earth of
> affording the full fee.
>

I think I covered this in the above response.
>
> Richard believed in supporting the poor - not saying sorry, you can't learn
> about me unless you're rich.
>
> > What makes you feel that the Society is extortionate? Is it the cost of
> > the subscription, do you feel it does not give you value for money?
>
> It doesn't matter how good value for the money it is if you haven't got the
> money - a *Porsche* is probably good value for the money, but I still can't
> afford one, especially when I'm scrabbling for money to pay the vet.
>

I may not be able to afford the Porsche, but if I had a passionate interest I might still afford a mag about them.
>
> I don't even know what the subscription is these days - a friend very kindly
> paid it for me as a gift. But I know it was beyond my resources 25 years
> ago when I was working for the Telegraph and I doubt it's got
> proportionately cheaper.
>

It probably hasn't. But when you look at costs that you have no control in like printing and postage then the journals probably still represent good value.
>
> > So long as you include articles which are not just on Richard but on the
> > whole late Meddiaeval period lots of people will seek for ancestral
> > background there. Post some good articled on 15th C York, for example, and
> > thousands of people will want to read them.
> >
> > Would these articles have been already published by the Soc.? Not sure
> > what you are meaning here. Again, if in the past, yes, make them
> > available, but not for free.
>
> Indeed - but keep the cost at a level people can afford. Let non-members
> see them too, for a slightly greater but still affordable chance.
>

How do you determine the cost that people can afford for an article. One person may feel that £3 is too much and another may say that £5 was a bargain.
>
> Nevertheless, I do think that if you let people see articles for free but
> asked for voluntary donations to do so, you'd probably end up with more
> money, because nearly everybody would pay soemthing and many people who
> could afford to would pay extra.
>

I will have to disagree here, if something relies on voluntary donations then you might as well not charge at all.
>
> People are, on average, more honest and generous than you think - a lot of
> farms that do pick-your-own just leave a set of scales and a cash box by the
> gate, and most people do weigh up and pay up.
>

And how many have they eaten while picking?
>
> > OK, but this is what I have said all along, make available all past
> > journal material at cost. To expand this along your lines for example, one
> > article £3, four or £10, eight for £15 etc as an example.
>
> That's reasonable, yes.
>
> > You said their journals were a separate issue, but you didn't say what the
> > costs are and how they are delivered etc?
>
> Not sure, because I can't afford them. The newsletter of Scotland's People
> is free, but Ancestry has a journal you pay to subscribe to.
>
>

On 5 May 2013, at 18:58, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>
> Plus, if you require people to join the Society in order to see the articles
> then you are back to requiring people to make a commitment that says they
> are already supporters of Richard before they can access the information
> which might have *made* them supporters of Richard. If there was a really
> good article on Bosworth from Henry VII's viewpoint, how many here would
> join a Henry Tudor Society in order to access it? How many would pay £3 to
> get it as a one-off?
>

I wasn't proposing this idea. My proposal was that the website has a section of all previous articles of interest which is available to members and non members. There is a good case that as a member you can get them at a discounted rate and non members pay a premium, which I think is a fair way of doing it.
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



> I also know that over the years the membership has declined because
> members like yourself also had to look at their income and decide if the
> Society was an essential need. So, where this is taking us now is that as
> this number is growing all the time, if we say let all these people have
> something for free and they paid say £5 a year, because that is what they
> can afford, not what it is worth, then it won't be many years before the
> Society will fold as the outgoings will exceed the income.

Not if you say that people who get cheap access can *only* have electronic
copies - then they only cost you your bandwidth which you were probably
paying a flat fee for anyway. So you continue to get
substantial-cost-plus-a-bit-extra for the printed magazines, plus
almost-zero-cost-plus-a-bit-extra from the electronic ones. As opposed to
only getting substantial-cost-plus-a-bit-extra from full members and nothing
from those who can't afford to join.

Indeed, you may make more from the elctronic ones. If you sell a printed
magazine for say £6 than probably £4.50 of that goes on production costs -
but you can sell an electonic copy for £2.50 and only about 20p of that is
costs.

> I may not be able to afford the Porsche, but if I had a passionate
> interest I might still afford a mag about them.

In the circles I move in, one of my friends once defined "winning"
financially as "being able to buy a packet of crisps without having to worry
about whether you can afford it". It's been a long time since I reached
those dizzy heights - in fact when I had my own shop I was paying myself £8
a week.

> It probably hasn't. But when you look at costs that you have no control in
> like printing and postage then the journals probably still represent good
> value.

Absolutely - but the cost of producing a pdf which people can print at their
end is much less.

> I will have to disagree here, if something relies on voluntary donations
> then you might as well not charge at all.

Works for shareware!

> People are, on average, more honest and generous than you think - a lot of
> farms that do pick-your-own just leave a set of scales and a cash box by
> the
> gate, and most people do weigh up and pay up.

> And how many have they eaten while picking?

Not a lot.

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> I wasn't proposing this idea. My proposal was that the website has a
> section of all previous articles of interest which is available to members
> and non members. There is a good case that as a member you can get them at
> a discounted rate and non members pay a premium, which I think is a fair
> way of doing it.

OK - so long as the premium rate isn't so expensive as to put off the very
people we want to convert. You could do what most such magazines do and
make it free to university students and personnel.

I'd put the reconstruction's mouth on him, otherwise it looks perfect.





-----Original Message-----
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sun, May 5, 2013 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the
> reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn't
> gone gaga, gives it a green light.
http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably
spot on.

Oh yes, that's *very* nice - it corrects both the wonky left eye in the NPG
version and the dubious colouring and plastic-ish skin of the
reconstruction. I once did something similar with the NPG and SoA
portraits - but this is better.

Based on the NPG portrait his hair-colour should perhaps be a little
richer - then again this is spot on for the colour as shown in the SoA
version.



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks for posting this. The composite looks more life like than either one individually.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn’t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> I'd put the reconstruction's mouth on him, otherwise it looks perfect.

The difference between his mouth in the reconstruction and in the portrait
tends rather to confirm that he had a tendency to bite his lip - since the
reconstruction shows him with a fairly full mouth, and the portrait shows
that mouth clamped quite thin.

On 5 May 2013, at 20:41, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>
>
> Not if you say that people who get cheap access can *only* have electronic
> copies - then they only cost you your bandwidth which you were probably
> paying a flat fee for anyway. So you continue to get
> substantial-cost-plus-a-bit-extra for the printed magazines, plus
> almost-zero-cost-plus-a-bit-extra from the electronic ones. As opposed to
> only getting substantial-cost-plus-a-bit-extra from full members and nothing
> from those who can't afford to join.
>
> Indeed, you may make more from the elctronic ones. If you sell a printed
> magazine for say £6 than probably £4.50 of that goes on production costs -
> but you can sell an electonic copy for £2.50 and only about 20p of that is
> costs.
>

I don't remember saying anything about a cheap access option, can you quote me on that from a previous email? As the Soc. doesn't offer this as an option it is difficult to speculate on costs etc. My wife has a Kindle and I have heard her say how close a book costs electronically compared to buying a hard copy, I say to go and buy the hard copy and you have it for real then, but........!

To put you original concet of letting people who can't afford the full price, to have it at a discount/voluntary rate, let's use this scenario as an example.

I'll use my bus mag as the exmple.

I am the publisher and I have 10,000 members paying £30 a year each.
It costs £25 as a baseline figure to service each member.
I then have 2,000 members who pay me £10 at a reduced rate as they can't afford more.
I make £5 on each full membership
I make a loss of £15 or the reduced membership
It takes three full members to subsidise each reduced membership
At the moment it takes 6,000 members to support those 2,000 just to cover my baseline cost
I then have 4,000 making me a surplus of £20,000 it could have been £50,000
If my reduced membership increases by 250 each month, how long is it before I make a loss?
Once I am making that loss, who pays my staff, the printer and the postage?
In reality I have gone out of business.

I would rather have that core 10,000 members to allow me to use that £50,000 to support the hobby more by saving a bus, doing more research, buying critical spares etc. Your concept puts those ideals in jeopardy.

>
> > I may not be able to afford the Porsche, but if I had a passionate
> > interest I might still afford a mag about them.
>
> In the circles I move in, one of my friends once defined "winning"
> financially as "being able to buy a packet of crisps without having to worry
> about whether you can afford it". It's been a long time since I reached
> those dizzy heights - in fact when I had my own shop I was paying myself £8
> a week.
>
>
That is an unfortunate position to be in. Did you seek professional advice on seeing how to make changes to help?
> > It probably hasn't. But when you look at costs that you have no control in
> > like printing and postage then the journals probably still represent good
> > value.
>
> Absolutely - but the cost of producing a pdf which people can print at their
> end is much less.
>
We come full circle again which is where all this started, in that if you offer an electronic version, how do you have a plan which keeps membership and income and not to allow people access to your account or you to print off copies to members who now feel they can lapse and see someone else's for free, which is where you have been coming from saying that others should sub those that can't pay for a full subscription.
>
> > I will have to disagree here, if something relies on voluntary donations
> > then you might as well not charge at all.
>
> Works for shareware!
>

How do you then propose that the society makes some form of profit to support publication of books, projects like Leicester then if they have to rely on donations only which may never cover the baseline cost?
>
> > People are, on average, more honest and generous than you think - a lot of
> > farms that do pick-your-own just leave a set of scales and a cash box by
> > the
> > gate, and most people do weigh up and pay up.
>
> > And how many have they eaten while picking?
>
> Not a lot.
>

Not when I went picking strawberries! Does this make me dishonest, not really because the cost per pound took into account that loss and as I knew that then I also knew they were not running at a loss.
>
>

> > I wasn't proposing this idea. My proposal was that the website has a
> > section of all previous articles of interest which is available to members
> > and non members. There is a good case that as a member you can get them at
> > a discounted rate and non members pay a premium, which I think is a fair
> > way of doing it.
>
> OK - so long as the premium rate isn't so expensive as to put off the very
> people we want to convert. You could do what most such magazines do and
> make it free to university students and personnel.
>
That is an option but I'm afraid to say that most commercial entities these days are always looking to increase the bottom line and if they are doing it for free now I would say it probably won't be that long before things change and there will be a cost for everything. Why should the Soc. be any different? People today are more in tune as to what intellectual property is worth and what they can sell it for.


I can see that everything from your perspective should be either free or substantially offset to the real cost but any company, business or organisation just can't work to that model and survive.
>
>

Agree with you neil. How do I join. I live in England and always keep my books on Richard. I watched the trial in the eightys and actually got library access to the CC an Buck. The best part of the trial was Baldwin looking like an idiot. Like many josephine teys book was reccommed by my history and english teachers. I would like to know how to join the society if I can afford it. I live in Yorkshire. I'd that amkes a difference but support Fotherigay as a wonderfol tribute to the York. Family. Regard. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
Sender:
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 18:18:03
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting





On 5 May 2013, at 17:23, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>
>
> Yes, understood, but you probably don't passionately love vintage buses
> quite the way people love Richard. And if you and your mates did love
> vintage buses that way, and if the magazine was actually contributing to the
> rescue and preservation of actual endangered buses instead of just talking
> about them, most of them would probably contribute money to rescue the thing
> they loved. And *more* people who loved vintage buses but couldn't afford
> to pay the full annual rate for the magazine would read it and make a small
> voluntary contribution, as much as they could afford, and overall you might
> well end up with more money.
>

People that own old vehicles have a real passion or them, just as much as people here have or Richard, so much so that they can become part of the family. If you meet any old classic vehicle owners you will understand by the way they speak about them.

For myself I was passionate about my bus and others of the same model, so much that I was able to purchase all the spares from the manufacturer when the model ceased to be used by companies. I acquired about 20 tons of parts. I even re-manufacture some parts that are no longer available.

I am active in this hobby with like minded friends, but we feel that trying to find a loop hole in doing something to a magazine in reducing revenue isn't being honest and ethical.

If I couldn't afford the cost of the bus mag then I can't really afford the bus and the associated expenses.

Is it fair that some people that say they can't afford to buy say the bus mag should still have access to it and read it in full and then make whatever small contribution they can to help things continue, which is what I think you are saying? I would feel as someone that pays the full amount a little grieved that I am subsidising others. On this basis I don't see how the magazine could possibly make more money. If people were aware of such an option more people would do the same, I would, but not because I couldn't afford to but on the basis that others can and do.
>
> Because people love Richard and feel strongly that he has been wronged, the
> Society is hovering close to being a charity in terms of people's
> willingness to give money to it, so long as they don't feel it's extorting
> money from them with a big stick. Think of the Ricardian as equivalent not
> to a magazine about vintage buses but to a Save the Endangered Bears
> bulletin.
>
What makes you feel that the Society is extortionate? Is it the cost of the subscription, do you feel it does not give you value for money? Vintage buses are also an endangered lot, there is an old saying in the bus world, ....survival of the fittest! Buses that are in good condition are scrapped and lost forever, at least we have Richard now, mostly anyway.
>
> > With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in
> > agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12
> > or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current
> > members.
>
> It would be enough I think just to say that if you're a member you get free
> access, at leas tot the eyars you've been a member.
>

I believe that even if you are a current member, if there was something you wanted from the past, then you pay for it as anyone else would, if this was a real option by the Society. Why would you want access to material online when you are a member for a said period, you would have the hardcopy already, have I missed something herer?
>
> > I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines
> > possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large
> > and people are always seeking their own past.
>
> So long as you include articles which are not just on Richard but on the
> whole late Meddiaeval period lots of people will seek for ancestral
> background there. Post some good articled on 15th C York, for example, and
> thousands of people will want to read them.
>

Would these articles have been already published by the Soc.? Not sure what you are meaning here. Again, if in the past, yes, make them available, but not for free.
>
> > In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You
> > say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of
> > journals?
>
> Journals are a separate thing and paid for separately I think. But for
> example if you're looking for records on Scotland's People you pay £7 for 30
> units. It's free to search, and then the research results will say things
> like "There are 45 records which fit these search terms". To view one page
> (I think 20 or 30 entries) from the list of results costs one unit, and then
> to actually bring up an individual record on screen or download it to your
> PC costs five units. Obviously you want to charge a bit more to view
> scholarly articles - maybe £2 - £5 per article according to length, or
> perhaps e.g. 50p per page. You want it to bring in enough money to pay for
> itself and a little extra, without being off-puttingly expensive.
>

OK, but this is what I have said all along, make available all past journal material at cost. To expand this along your lines for example, one article £3, four or £10, eight for £15 etc as an example.

You said their journals were a separate issue, but you didn't say what the costs are and how they are delivered etc?

Neil
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting

> I don't remember saying anything about a cheap access option, can you
> quote me on that from a previous email?

*I'm* suggesting it.

> As the Soc. doesn't offer this as an option it is difficult to speculate
> on costs etc. My wife has a Kindle and I have heard her say how close a
> book costs electronically compared to buying a hard copy,

Yes - but that's the cost to the buyer. The cost to the publisher will be
much less! Especially if they're doing both, so they've already had to pay
a compositor and so on for the printed version, then the cost to them of the
Kindle version will be peanuts.

Actually printing a run of books on paper costs tens of thousands of
pounds - but you can produce an eBook on your home PC. I think it costs
about £60 for the software but that's a one-off expense.

> I am the publisher and I have 10,000 members paying £30 a year each.
It costs £25 as a baseline figure to service each member.
I then have 2,000 members who pay me £10 at a reduced rate as they can't
afford more.
I make £5 on each full membership
I make a loss of £15 or the reduced membership

No. Printing and postage will make up the major part of your costs,
especially if you print in colour, so it goes like this:

I am the publisher and I have 10,000 members paying £30 a year each and
receiving paper copies.
It costs £25 as a baseline figure to service each member receiving paper
copies.
I then have 2,000 members who pay me £10 at a reduced rate and receive
electronic copies only.
It costs £2.50 as a baseline figure to service each member receiving
electronic copies only.
I make £5 on each full membership
I make £7.50 on each reduced-rate membership.

You can fiddle with the exact costs depending on what services you're
providing, but basically if the reduced rate customers receive electronic
copies only then their costs will be enormously less than for those
receiving dead trees, so you'll still make a profit from them and quite
likely *more* than from the more expensive group.

Hi Coral,

The web link is http://www.richardiii.net/soc_membership.php

It will be Wendy Moorhen that will process the application but I know she is away this weekend with some other Ricardians on a long weekend jolly, which is why I am on my own this weekend, bliss!!

Neil



On 5 May 2013, at 21:40, "coral nelson" <c.nelson1@...> wrote:

> Agree with you neil. How do I join. I live in England and always keep my books on Richard. I watched the trial in the eightys and actually got library access to the CC an Buck. The best part of the trial was Baldwin looking like an idiot. Like many josephine teys book was reccommed by my history and english teachers. I would like to know how to join the society if I can afford it. I live in Yorkshire. I'd that amkes a difference but support Fotherigay as a wonderfol tribute to the York. Family. Regard. Coral
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
> Sender:
> Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 18:18:03
> To: <>
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 17:23, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Yes, understood, but you probably don't passionately love vintage buses
> > quite the way people love Richard. And if you and your mates did love
> > vintage buses that way, and if the magazine was actually contributing to the
> > rescue and preservation of actual endangered buses instead of just talking
> > about them, most of them would probably contribute money to rescue the thing
> > they loved. And *more* people who loved vintage buses but couldn't afford
> > to pay the full annual rate for the magazine would read it and make a small
> > voluntary contribution, as much as they could afford, and overall you might
> > well end up with more money.
> >
>
> People that own old vehicles have a real passion or them, just as much as people here have or Richard, so much so that they can become part of the family. If you meet any old classic vehicle owners you will understand by the way they speak about them.
>
> For myself I was passionate about my bus and others of the same model, so much that I was able to purchase all the spares from the manufacturer when the model ceased to be used by companies. I acquired about 20 tons of parts. I even re-manufacture some parts that are no longer available.
>
> I am active in this hobby with like minded friends, but we feel that trying to find a loop hole in doing something to a magazine in reducing revenue isn't being honest and ethical.
>
> If I couldn't afford the cost of the bus mag then I can't really afford the bus and the associated expenses.
>
> Is it fair that some people that say they can't afford to buy say the bus mag should still have access to it and read it in full and then make whatever small contribution they can to help things continue, which is what I think you are saying? I would feel as someone that pays the full amount a little grieved that I am subsidising others. On this basis I don't see how the magazine could possibly make more money. If people were aware of such an option more people would do the same, I would, but not because I couldn't afford to but on the basis that others can and do.
> >
> > Because people love Richard and feel strongly that he has been wronged, the
> > Society is hovering close to being a charity in terms of people's
> > willingness to give money to it, so long as they don't feel it's extorting
> > money from them with a big stick. Think of the Ricardian as equivalent not
> > to a magazine about vintage buses but to a Save the Endangered Bears
> > bulletin.
> >
> What makes you feel that the Society is extortionate? Is it the cost of the subscription, do you feel it does not give you value for money? Vintage buses are also an endangered lot, there is an old saying in the bus world, ....survival of the fittest! Buses that are in good condition are scrapped and lost forever, at least we have Richard now, mostly anyway.
> >
> > > With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in
> > > agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12
> > > or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current
> > > members.
> >
> > It would be enough I think just to say that if you're a member you get free
> > access, at leas tot the eyars you've been a member.
> >
>
> I believe that even if you are a current member, if there was something you wanted from the past, then you pay for it as anyone else would, if this was a real option by the Society. Why would you want access to material online when you are a member for a said period, you would have the hardcopy already, have I missed something herer?
> >
> > > I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines
> > > possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large
> > > and people are always seeking their own past.
> >
> > So long as you include articles which are not just on Richard but on the
> > whole late Meddiaeval period lots of people will seek for ancestral
> > background there. Post some good articled on 15th C York, for example, and
> > thousands of people will want to read them.
> >
>
> Would these articles have been already published by the Soc.? Not sure what you are meaning here. Again, if in the past, yes, make them available, but not for free.
> >
> > > In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You
> > > say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of
> > > journals?
> >
> > Journals are a separate thing and paid for separately I think. But for
> > example if you're looking for records on Scotland's People you pay £7 for 30
> > units. It's free to search, and then the research results will say things
> > like "There are 45 records which fit these search terms". To view one page
> > (I think 20 or 30 entries) from the list of results costs one unit, and then
> > to actually bring up an individual record on screen or download it to your
> > PC costs five units. Obviously you want to charge a bit more to view
> > scholarly articles - maybe £2 - £5 per article according to length, or
> > perhaps e.g. 50p per page. You want it to bring in enough money to pay for
> > itself and a little extra, without being off-puttingly expensive.
> >
>
> OK, but this is what I have said all along, make available all past journal material at cost. To expand this along your lines for example, one article £3, four or £10, eight for £15 etc as an example.
>
> You said their journals were a separate issue, but you didn't say what the costs are and how they are delivered etc?
>
> Neil
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> I can see that everything from your perspective should be either free or
> substantially offset to the real cost

Once you've already produced the article, it's costing you pence to provide
electronic access years down the line. I'm suggesting it should
realistically cover its costs, not seek to make a large profit.

> but any company, business or organisation just can't work to that model
> and survive.

But is your aim to spread the word about Richard, or is it to make money?
What is the point of research into Richard which is only accessible to the
already-converted?

On 5 May 2013, at 22:14, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > I don't remember saying anything about a cheap access option, can you
> > quote me on that from a previous email?
>
> *I'm* suggesting it.
>

It isn't always a good idea to be suggestive as it makes other people on this forum think I actually did say that when I didn't. I have noticed in a number of your other email responses on other topics where you use words like could, might, may. These are also suggestive and can actually twist the thread into a negative position. If when replying you could use primary facts/sources it will help in the debate as to being factual and precise, thanks.
>
> > As the Soc. doesn't offer this as an option it is difficult to speculate
> > on costs etc. My wife has a Kindle and I have heard her say how close a
> > book costs electronically compared to buying a hard copy,
>
> Yes - but that's the cost to the buyer. The cost to the publisher will be
> much less! Especially if they're doing both, so they've already had to pay
> a compositor and so on for the printed version, then the cost to them of the
> Kindle version will be peanuts.
>
>
So why should the Soc. sell it at wholesale price or less and not retail price to the buyer? The Soc. is basically a retailer of goods.
> Actually printing a run of books on paper costs tens of thousands of
> pounds - but you can produce an eBook on your home PC. I think it costs
> about £60 for the software but that's a one-off expense.
>
> > I am the publisher and I have 10,000 members paying £30 a year each.
> It costs £25 as a baseline figure to service each member.
> I then have 2,000 members who pay me £10 at a reduced rate as they can't
> afford more.
> I make £5 on each full membership
> I make a loss of £15 or the reduced membership
>
> No. Printing and postage will make up the major part of your costs,
> especially if you print in colour, so it goes like this:
>
> I am the publisher and I have 10,000 members paying £30 a year each and
> receiving paper copies.
> It costs £25 as a baseline figure to service each member receiving paper
> copies.
> I then have 2,000 members who pay me £10 at a reduced rate and receive
> electronic copies only.
> It costs £2.50 as a baseline figure to service each member receiving
> electronic copies only.
> I make £5 on each full membership
> I make £7.50 on each reduced-rate membership.
>

I didn't say if this was hard copy or electronic, I was actually basing it on a hard copy scenario. Even if it was an electronic scenario the end result would still be the same based on costs etc? You are trying to mix and match which is confusing the figures, how do you know that 10,000 are all hard copy and all 2,000 are electronic? I didn't say what the split was, if any. What would the result based on your figures be then if the 10,000 were electronic and the 2,000 hard copy?

I think at the end of the day your ideal in how magazines/journals should be funded is a great idea in a make believe world, but in the real world this just isn't going to work
>
> You can fiddle with the exact costs depending on what services you're
> providing, but basically if the reduced rate customers receive electronic
> copies only then their costs will be enormously less than for those
> receiving dead trees, so you'll still make a profit from them and quite
> likely *more* than from the more expensive group.
>
>

Sandra, this is great. Love it!
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Im going to use it as my screensaver....eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > That is just wonderful!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:52 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard morphed
> >
> >
> >
> > "SandraMachin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn’t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> > > http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Excellent! Almost as good as a Holbein portrait. I hope we'll see this image on a lot of book covers.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Its amazing isnt it Elaine...it made me catch my breath...I felt like I was for the first time *really *seeing the face of Richard without a doubt...eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra, this is great. Love it!
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Im going to use it as my screensaver....eileen
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is just wonderful!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:52 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard morphed
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "SandraMachin" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn’t gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> > > > http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Excellent! Almost as good as a Holbein portrait. I hope we'll see this image on a lot of book covers.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

>
>
> > I can see that everything from your perspective should be either free or
> > substantially offset to the real cost
>
> Once you've already produced the article, it's costing you pence to provide
> electronic access years down the line. I'm suggesting it should
> realistically cover its costs, not seek to make a large profit.
>

It isn't just about what it costs to produce the article, it is all the hidden costs that the Society in this case has to add in to support articles which the end user has the good fortune to see.

So if I write a book, it goes electronic, sells 5,000 copies and covers all my costs and makes a bit of profit, do I sell the next 5,000 at say 25% of original cost and the next 5,000 at 12.5% ? No, if people are prepared to pay the original price, then I use that as the benchmark for all future sales, it just means I make a bigger profit on the more sales I make, that is business and you won't change it.
>
> > but any company, business or organisation just can't work to that model
> > and survive.
>
> But is your aim to spread the word about Richard, or is it to make money?
> What is the point of research into Richard which is only accessible to the
> already-converted?
>
>
The aim is to do both. To spread the word is very admirable but if it doesn't pay bills then you are a dead duck and out of business.

What research have you done to support Richard? Would you spend hours and hours of work with associated costs for nothing just for others?

You look at all people that have books in print for Richard, those books are expensive and they don't do it just for the love of Richard, they can't afford to print thousands of books and then sell them below cost price.
>

Me, too! I posted it on my Timeline and on the Society page on FB, and there
have been some really positive comments there as well.



I would say - this is truly my king!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:46 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard morphed





Its amazing isnt it Elaine...it made me catch my breath...I felt like I was
for the first time *really *seeing the face of Richard without a
doubt...eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ellrosa1452"
<kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra, this is great. Love it!
> Elaine
>

The person who did this morphisation..I just made up that word...neat eh?...they need to know how good it is. I would love to see this image of Richard on the cover of the Bulletin..Ive never been too keen on the current pic which makes Richard look, well rather ugly...eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Me, too! I posted it on my Timeline and on the Society page on FB, and there
> have been some really positive comments there as well.
>
>
>
> I would say - this is truly my king!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:46 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard morphed
>
>
>
>
>
> Its amazing isnt it Elaine...it made me catch my breath...I felt like I was
> for the first time *really *seeing the face of Richard without a
> doubt...eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "ellrosa1452"
> <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Sandra, this is great. Love it!
> > Elaine
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> I didn't say if this was hard copy or electronic, I was actually basing it
> on a hard copy scenario.

Yes, but as you pointed out, clearly that wouldn't work. For it to work the
cheaper subscriptions still need to cover their costs plus a bit in hand,
and to do that they have to be substantially cheaper to service than the
full subscriptions. Since two of your major costs for the full
subscriptions are printing and postage, the simplest way to reduce the cost
of the cheap susbcriptions is to make the cheaper ones electronic only.

> Even if it was an electronic scenario the end result would still be the
> same based on costs etc? You are trying to mix and match which is
> confusing the figures, how do you know that 10,000 are all hard copy and
> all 2,000 are electronic?

Because you said you had 10,000 full-price and 2,000 cheap and the model
only works if the cheap ones are electronic-only. Full-price = printed,
cheap-rate = electronic.

> What would the result based on your figures be then if the 10,000 were
> electronic and the 2,000 hard copy?

You get very rich, because the electronic ones are so much cheaper to
produce than the printed ones that even though they're sold at a lower
price, they'll bring in more revenue per copy.

Your production costs for things like paying writers and buying the use of
images will be the same whatever the format, but because ink and postage are
so expensive at the moment the model goes something like this:

Printed copy:
Production cost per magazine - £1
Printing cost per magazine - £2.50
Postage per magazine - £1.50
Total cost per magazine - £5
Price per magazine - £6.50
Profit per magazine - £1.50

Electronic copy:
Production cost per magazine - £1
Distribution cost per magazine - £0.25
Total cost per magazine - £1.25
Price per magazine - £3.25
Profit per magazine - £2

Obviously this is just a sample, exact costs may vary - but you just tweak
your prices to make sure the cheaper version is still bringing in a good
profit and, probably, a bigger profit than the printed one.

> I think at the end of the day your ideal in how magazines/journals should
> be funded is a great idea in a make believe world, but in the real world
> this just isn't going to work

Nah, it's a common business model nowadays. Lots of publications offer a
choice between a print or an electronic version and many (such as the Oxford
English Dictionary) are going over to all-electronic because it's easier and
more profitable.

As for not worrying about poor people getting access to other people's
copies, that's effectively how Microsoft works. They make a big fuss if
rich companies who can afford to pay for licences use hooky copies of their
software, but they don't worry all that much if private citizens do the
same - they know that once you've installed your hooky copy of Office or
whatever, you've committed yourself to using their system and so you'll have
to buy other stuff from them further down the line. And we all know how
badly [not] that model turned out for Bill Gates!

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> Its amazing isnt it Elaine...it made me catch my breath...I felt like I
> was for the first time *really *seeing the face of Richard without a
> doubt...eileen

And it's balanced out his age - the NPG portrait looks about 40 and the
reconstruction 20, but combining them has made him look 30-ish, so it gives
a good impression of what he must have looked like round about the time he
became king.

It is almost like looking at a photograph of a contemporary individual, and not a recreation.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 5, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



Me, too! I posted it on my Timeline and on the Society page on FB, and there
have been some really positive comments there as well.

I would say - this is truly my king!

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 6:46 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Richard morphed

Its amazing isnt it Elaine...it made me catch my breath...I felt like I was
for the first time *really *seeing the face of Richard without a
doubt...eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>> , "ellrosa1452"
<kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra, this is great. Love it!
> Elaine
>

From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> What research have you done to support Richard?

Not much because I don't live somewhere where I'd have access to the records
and I'm too poor to afford the books. But I've spent 42 years persuading
people to his cause.

> Would you spend hours and hours of work with associated costs for nothing
> just for others?

Not with the costs, no, because I'm too poor, but I give huge amounts of my
time and expertise free or very cheap. A friend is paying me to tutor her
in Java, for example, at a rate that works out at £13 for 30-50 hours' work.

> You look at all people that have books in print for Richard, those books
> are expensive and they don't do it just for the love of Richard, they
> can't afford to print thousands of books and then sell them below cost
> price.

I'm not saying that they should - just that cost price for electronic books
is enormously lower than for printed ones, so they can be sold substantially
cheaper and still make a profit.

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> It is almost like looking at a photograph of a contemporary individual,
> and not a recreation.

His hair is still a little odd - that's the fault of the NPG portrait.
Unless he was wearing his hair in actual bunches you ought to be able to see
it continuing along below the line of his jaw. But yes, it makes his face
much more real-looking - as if at any moment he might walk out of the frame
and go and investigate whatever it is he's looking at.

Medieval hair nets? or hair gel? (The mind boggles what might have been in
such a concoction).

A J


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 11:58 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Richard morphed
>
> > It is almost like looking at a photograph of a contemporary individual,
> > and not a recreation.
>
> His hair is still a little odd - that's the fault of the NPG portrait.
> Unless he was wearing his hair in actual bunches you ought to be able to
> see
> it continuing along below the line of his jaw. But yes, it makes his face
> much more real-looking - as if at any moment he might walk out of the
> frame
> and go and investigate whatever it is he's looking at.
>
>
>

From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> Medieval hair nets? or hair gel? (The mind boggles what might have been in
> such a concoction).

Goose fat? Egg white? I suppose as he was sitting for a formal portrait he
*might* have had his hair set with something, or decorously arranged with an
invisible hairclip (which is poking him in the ear, hence the pained
expression) - but I'd rather see him as he looked when he wasn't posing for
an artist!

Eileen, you wrote what I was trying to compose......it has already been decided so it serves for naught our arguing among ourselves. Or going round and round the circle.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 4, 2013, at 9:37 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> To be honest...I don't think there is anything the Society CAN do re Richard's burial place. The decision making lies with others....and to tell you the truth I think it has already been decided and that is that. Im sorry to sound so negative and I not happy even saying it...and I admire those who are still trying to make a difference in the outcome or have an input but I think we are all going to be presented with a fait accompli...
>
> I feel it is a shame and Im bitterly disappointed that, to my knowledge, York Minster has not thrown its hat in the ring and announced publicly loud and clear they would be very happy to give Richard's remains a burial place.....and until they do, I will not hold my breath, then I dont think it is worth arguing that Richard should go to York...If I wrong about York Minster's apparent reluctance to having Richard then I will apologise...but they really do need to get their finger out because time marches on. and King Richard needs to be laid to rest once and for all..Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but prod it to do what? Perhaps it is trying to be neutral because it doesn't want to take sides with one part of its membership against another. Some years ago, a substantial part of the Society's membership fell out with its leadership and took itself off in a huff and set up another group. Perhaps, in taking a neutral stance, the current leadership is trying to stop a similar thing happening again.
> >
> > As to what the Society cares about, that is obvious, I would have thought.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:02 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > Someone even appeared to equate the Society's Committee with the Kremlin.
> >
> > Sandra replies: That was me, Pamela, and I stand by it. It isn't backbiting, merely bewilderment. As I said, I haven't been back here for long, but all I've seen is a lot of people wondering what the Society, thinks/intends/wants/cares about. Shouldn't they be keeping the hoi polloi up to date a little more? We should not be waiting for crumbs. Sorry to offend, but it's my interpretation. It's like waiting for an announcement to be pinned up at Buck House. I won't go on about it. My piece has been said. But I do still support the Society. Of course I do. How could I not? I just want to prod it a little.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

In a message dated 5/5/2013 6:23:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
ajhibbard@... writes:

Medieval hair nets? or hair gel? (The mind boggles what might have been in
such a concoction).

A J

My guess is soap -- it's been used as a pomade since Roman times, and the
punks still use it to this day.


> Subject: Re: Richard morphed
>
> > It is almost like looking at a photograph of a contemporary
individual,
> > and not a recreation.
>
> His hair is still a little odd - that's the fault of the NPG portrait.
> Unless he was wearing his hair in actual bunches you ought to be able to
> see
> it continuing along below the line of his jaw. But yes, it makes his face
> much more real-looking - as if at any moment he might walk out of the
> frame
> and go and investigate whatever it is he's looking at.
>
"Greetings, gentle folk -- for such you must be, your gentle manners and
scholarship are your heralds.

"I see from where I sit that you are all touching fingers to slightly
tilted boards with letters and numbers inscribed thereon. Is this how you have
speech with one another? How marvellous!"



Tamara

Me too.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 4, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I would as well.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Judy Thomson
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:54 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
> I agree with Paul. I'm a member of the American Branch and would certainly vote, if notice were sent out. Those who don't have computers could give their proxy statements to friends who do...or else use the post. One stamp for Richard? It's not a big financial sacrifice by the sender, especially if those paper ballots are toted up and accounted for by the Branch, rather than being collected directly from overseas.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
> Postal vote would cost is the reason that it is not mooted, I would
> hazard a guess at, Christine. But there's no reason against an on line
> ballot, as members if not on line can get access to a computer, surely?
> Paul
>
> On 04/05/2013 11:43, christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello All.
> > There is no reason why The Executive Committee could not hold an E petition and postal vote for those without computers so all members unable to get to a meeting for various reasons could vote yet they seem very reluctant to do so, why?
> > The AGM is restricted to a number depending I think on venue, so anyone who does not get a place is unable to vote, this is not as far as I am concerned democratic and there is no excuse for it in this day and age of email etc.
> > I would like to attend the next AGM to have my say but its in London and therefore expensive for me to attend as I live in South Yorks and am a pensioner and not a rich one I might add.
> > It's very depressing. I am quite seriously thinking of not joining the main branch next time but I would not have a vote at all then.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >> Not London, please, or any other big city. Somewhere easy to get to, with plenty of parking. Somewhere fairly central that will encourage members from all over to make the effort. I wouldnâ¬"t go to all the trouble of London, thatâ¬"s for sure. Canâ¬"t abide the place. And no, not Leicester! And not that car park!
> >>
> >> BTW, yesterday I heard from a cousin of my husbandâ¬"s, who told me that when his daughter attended Leicester University (some time ago now) he actually parked on Richard. More than once. I feel I should wear a hair shirt, or something. And heâ¬"s not even MY cousin!
> >>
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: emmali1956
> >> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:55 PM
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
> >>
> >> Yes I know there'll be a logistical problem but, if we do nothing just because it's difficult, we may by our inaction be party to something decided behind closed doors and without consultation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That sounds wonderful to me. It would open avenues for discovery to those of us who are new, and perhaps an opportunity to any of us who gets to England, a chance to meet with fellow members.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Neil Trump
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



Claire,

I may have confused the issue, but I'll try and re-phrase, probably come out the same though.

If I take one of my interests of old vintage buses and say a group of 10 of us meet on a regular basis to discuss things and we all belong to an old bus magazine paying 10 lots of dues. They then offer a digital subscription which is a bit cheaper. Sounds great, so one member stays and the rest decline next renewal. Next time we meet we all sit around the PC and enjoy the publication as before and we can print of specific articles for those tan want them. As an individual 9 of us have gained but the magazine has lost out big time. Just to show we are not total meanies we do share the cost of the one person paying. Hope this makes it clearer.

With regards to paying for individual articles I think we are all in agreement of that logic. It may be a case that items only get added say 12 or 24 months after publication to keep that uniqueness for current members.

I think the genealogy concept sounds something along the same lines possibly but they have a membership that is very fluid and extremely large and people are always seeking their own past. In our case the volumes for membership are very small in comparison. You say they pay a set amount of £7, is this for doing searches or purchase of journals?

Neil

On 5 May 2013, at 16:19, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>> wrote:

> From: Neil Trump
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> With Claire's logic, let's say the topics subscription is £40 a year, this
> means a group of 12 people would generate £480. If one person joins that is
> a guaranteed £40 a year. If the others pick and choose to pay what they
> think it is worth I would put money that most people won't offer anything
> and those that do will not pay the equivalent of £10 for that quarter or
> whatever the number of publications are for that year. The revenue will
> plummet.
>
> Na - you suggest on each document that if people don't want to pay the full
> £40 they should contribute say £3 per document. Most of them will, and most
> of them will end up paying *more* than £40 in dribs and drabs.
>
> > As is said before, if you know of another topic/publication where Claire's
> > model works and had nil impact then please let me know.
>
> The whole of the shareware system on the internet operates on that basis.
> Geneaology websites operate on the basis that you can either buy a monthly
> or annual susbcription or you pay £7 for a set number of pay-as-you-go
> credits, and they make an absolute fortune: this business model is one of
> the most successful on the net.
>
>

I too didn't like the lumpy hair on his left (our right, looking at him) so I had a little go with Paint Shop Pro. In some haste, I fear. I am NOT a professional, but just mess around now and then, so it's not brilliant, and I have made the hair a little too long, perhaps. And the angle might have been better calculated. But I think' the impression is better and more likely. I've uploaded it on the Forum page, Portraits album. Named it:-

RIII adjusted  orig.tigerlight430.co.uk.

It's the last one of the 25 portraits. I've acknowledged tigerlight430 because it is his/her original work, I didn't ask permission, but have not posted it on a public site without due nod. To be honest, the NPG portrait's odd hair looks to me as if someone painted out a falsely abnormal shoulder height and made a tatty job of it. Don't know who or why, but that's my impression. Something of that sort, anyway. That part of the portrait looks particularly tinkered with. I certainly cannot believe Richard went around with his hair in such a peculiar style. Nor can I believe, looking at his other likenesses, that he ever put stuff on it. Sorry, had stuff put on his hair  he wouldn't do it himself! I can't imagine him having a shave, patting himself dry with a towel, and then looking in the mirror, whistling between his teeth as he attended to his locks. <g>

Sandra

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Richard morphed


> I have made the hair a little too long, perhaps.

Yes - it should make contact halfway up his neck. It still looks more
natural than the hairnet-hair in the NPG version, though.

> I can't imagine him having a shave, patting himself dry with a towel, and
> then looking in the mirror, whistling between his teeth as he attended to
> his locks. <g>

Oh, I can - but I think he'd pull faces at the glass and examine himself for
plooks when he thought no-one was watching....

Plooks????? Shock, horror. No, no. Richard wouldn't have such flaws!

Sandra

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:58 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard morphed

Oh, I can - but I think he'd pull faces at the glass and examine himself for
plooks when he thought no-one was watching....


Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (123)

Recent Activity: a.. New Members 2 a.. New Photos 1 a.. New Files 2
Visit Your Group

Claire,

The image of your profile is an interesting one but a bit blurred around
the edges.

The perception I am seeing is this:

You are on your own having to make do on a £100 a week and can't afford
a great deal.
Yet out of this £100 you can afford to run a website which I think you
mentioned costs just over £3 a month.
You also indicated that you have a pet which is another cost, at minimum
I guess this could be a £10-12 each month

You say that you can't afford the Soc. due to the expense but for a full
standard memebrship it is about £2.15 and for senior membership it is
about £1.65 a month, sounds very reasonable to me.

What I find really interesting is you view on software, in particular
Microsoft who you mentioned in an earlier post. You seem to feel it is
OK for big compnies to pay for a package or the license but for those
private citizens, like you who are poor, then it is OK to install a
hooky copy as they don't worry all that much. By this do we all take it
that you have a hooky copy installed on your machine and potentially
other hooky software. This is theft, fraud and morally not correct.

This is the very reason I would not advise anyone to go down the
electronic route. Again, by your own admission for being poor, the
signals you seem to be telling everyone is that it is OK to get
intelectual property from the web and not pay for it because you can't
afford it. Can you clarify if this is what you mean please? If your
view is that the Soc. is too expensive for you but there was a
possibility to download an electronic copy for free and not pay, then
the indication is that you would consider this to be fair game. Your
total debate seems to be focussed on free access to everything and make
a token donation. I wish I could share your ideals, but I can't.

It is people with this mindset that actually spoil it for those that are
honest and probably why a lot of publications haven't gone the digital
route.

Neil


On 06/05/2013 00:06, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> Â
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
>
> > What research have you done to support Richard?
>
> Not much because I don't live somewhere where I'd have access to the
> records
> and I'm too poor to afford the books. But I've spent 42 years persuading
> people to his cause.
>
> > Would you spend hours and hours of work with associated costs for
> nothing
> > just for others?
>
> Not with the costs, no, because I'm too poor, but I give huge amounts
> of my
> time and expertise free or very cheap. A friend is paying me to tutor her
> in Java, for example, at a rate that works out at £13 for 30-50
> hours' work.
>
> > You look at all people that have books in print for Richard, those
> books
> > are expensive and they don't do it just for the love of Richard, they
> > can't afford to print thousands of books and then sell them below cost
> > price.
>
> I'm not saying that they should - just that cost price for electronic
> books
> is enormously lower than for printed ones, so they can be sold
> substantially
> cheaper and still make a profit.
>
>

From: neil trump
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> The image of your profile is an interesting one but a bit blurred around
the edges.

I *really* don't think this is the place for this. I did ask you to take it
off-list.

The main purpose of the Richard III society is to spread the truth about
Richard as widely as possible. In my opinion - and that of others - this
can best be achieved by making the truth about him accessible to as many
people as possible. That's my final word on the subject.

Hi, Sandra 

I don't know if your comment was aimed at my passing the original portrait on, however, I would like to point out that 1) this is a public Forum, 2) in posting the original on FB, I have given credit in the form of the tigerlight URL, 3) there is no indication on the original site that the image is not to be shared, and 4) in my view, some things are too good to try to keep under a bushel. That image, in my opinion, is one of them, a very special creation indeed, and I would certainly give due credit to the artist, if I knew who was responsible for it. I do tend to assume that if something is posted on the Internet, it is available for sharing. J



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:06 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard morphed





I too didn't like the lumpy hair on his left (our right, looking at him) so I had a little go with Paint Shop Pro. In some haste, I fear. I am NOT a professional, but just mess around now and then, so it's not brilliant, and I have made the hair a little too long, perhaps. And the angle might have been better calculated. But I think' the impression is better and more likely. I've uploaded it on the Forum page, Portraits album. Named it:-

RIII adjusted  orig.tigerlight430.co.uk.

It's the last one of the 25 portraits. I've acknowledged tigerlight430 because it is his/her original work, I didn't ask permission, but have not posted it on a public site without due nod. To be honest, the NPG portrait's odd hair looks to me as if someone painted out a falsely abnormal shoulder height and made a tatty job of it. Don't know who or why, but that's my impression. Something of that sort, anyway. That part of the portrait looks particularly tinkered with. I certainly cannot believe Richard went around with his hair in such a peculiar style. Nor can I believe, looking at his other likenesses, that he ever put stuff on it. Sorry, had stuff put on his hair  he wouldn't do it himself! I can't imagine him having a shave, patting himself dry with a towel, and then looking in the mirror, whistling between his teeth as he attended to his locks. <g>

Sandra

Oh, Johanne, please do not think I was aiming anything at you. I would not do such a thing. You are right on every point, and I did not mean to suggest anything to the contrary. Please, please, do not think I did. If I had thought for a moment that you might come up against a problem with copyright, I would have contacted you off line and warned you of my uncertainty, but there is no such problem. I merely said it all because I've been caught before---coming up against copyright and so on with an intended book cover---and I did not want to risk it again. It can be a very tricky matter. I was simply watching my own back because I had taken the added liberty of altering the picture. Better safe than sorry, once bitten twice shy, and all other similar idioms. That's all. Please take this as an abject apology if I have unintentionally upset you.

Sandra

From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:00 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Richard morphed

I don't know if your comment was aimed at my passing the original portrait on, however, I would like to point out that 1) this is a public Forum, 2) in posting the original on FB, I have given credit in the form of the tigerlight URL, 3) there is no indication on the original site that the image is not to be shared, and 4) in my view, some things are too good to try to keep under a bushel. That image, in my opinion, is one of them, a very special creation indeed, and I would certainly give due credit to the artist, if I knew who was responsible for it. I do tend to assume that if something is posted on the Internet, it is available for sharing. J

Hi, Sandra 

No problem, thanks for explaining  I wasn't sure; I just thought it would be better to air things in the open. I agree with you, now that you mention it  I could have written to you off-list. However, as the previous material had been posted here, I thought I would send it this route.



I agree sometimes one has to be cautious  but as I mentioned, if this person didn't want it to be shared, he/she could have made it truly inaccessible by us. Also, I will reiterate, I will gladly give full credit, including the name if I become aware of it!



Anyway, no problem  I wasn't really upset, just wanted to clear the air.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 7:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard morphed





Oh, Johanne, please do not think I was aiming anything at you. I would not do such a thing. You are right on every point, and I did not mean to suggest anything to the contrary. Please, please, do not think I did. If I had thought for a moment that you might come up against a problem with copyright, I would have contacted you off line and warned you of my uncertainty, but there is no such problem. I merely said it all because I've been caught before---coming up against copyright and so on with an intended book cover---and I did not want to risk it again. It can be a very tricky matter. I was simply watching my own back because I had taken the added liberty of altering the picture. Better safe than sorry, once bitten twice shy, and all other similar idioms. That's all. Please take this as an abject apology if I have unintentionally upset you.

Sandra

From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 11:00 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Richard morphed

I don't know if your comment was aimed at my passing the original portrait on, however, I would like to point out that 1) this is a public Forum, 2) in posting the original on FB, I have given credit in the form of the tigerlight URL, 3) there is no indication on the original site that the image is not to be shared, and 4) in my view, some things are too good to try to keep under a bushel. That image, in my opinion, is one of them, a very special creation indeed, and I would certainly give due credit to the artist, if I knew who was responsible for it. I do tend to assume that if something is posted on the Internet, it is available for sharing. J

Neil Trump wrote:

"I wasn't proposing this idea. My proposal was that the website has a
section of all previous articles of interest which is available to members
and non members. There is a good case that as a member you can get them at a
discounted rate and non members pay a premium, which I think is a fair way
of doing it."

Doug here:
If I understand what you've posted correctly, from the date my membership is
accepted I have access to all articles from that point on (as long as I keep
my membeship current), while *anything* published prior to that date would
be available at a fee, with discounts available based on membership? If so,
then that sounds okay.
As to possibly charging a different membership rate for those electing to
receive their copies via the internet, I must admit I'm torn.
Personally, I like paper, but I also have my saving side. I can't see how
producing the Bulletin in both electronic *and* hard-copy formats can be
maintained economically.
The reduced expenditures for an only electronically-"delivered" Bulletin
almost certainly would increase membership, but that increase would have to
be balanced against the continuing costs of producing a hard-copy version
for those wishing one; especially as the costs for each hard-copy most
likely wouldn't decrease, and could very well increase. Also to be
considered would be an, almost certain, increase in the number of
non-members having access to the Bulletin's contents for free. I have no
doubt that happens with the hard-copy version, but I have no idea how
widespread it is.
Perhaps a discount, in addition to any other(s) that might apply, could be
offered for those electing to receive their copy electronically? Of course,
the Society would run the risk that the ease in making *further* electronic
copies wouldn't be offset by an increase in membership dues, whether with or
without any discounts, but it might work it if the "electronic" discount
wasn't for the *entire* amount being "saved".
Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be issued
electronically; it's what to do until then...
Doug

On 5 May 2013, at 17:20, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

>
> Neil Trump wrote:
>
> "I wasn't proposing this idea. My proposal was that the website has a
> section of all previous articles of interest which is available to members
> and non members. There is a good case that as a member you can get them at a
> discounted rate and non members pay a premium, which I think is a fair way
> of doing it."
>
> Doug here:
> If I understand what you've posted correctly, from the date my membership is
> accepted I have access to all articles from that point on (as long as I keep
> my membeship current), while *anything* published prior to that date would
> be available at a fee, with discounts available based on membership? If so,
> then that sounds okay.
>

yes, this is a feasible option that would make good business sense, nice to see someone appreciates the logic here
> As to possibly charging a different membership rate for those electing to
> receive their copies via the internet, I must admit I'm torn.
> Personally, I like paper, but I also have my saving side. I can't see how
> producing the Bulletin in both electronic *and* hard-copy formats can be
> maintained economically.
>

It probably isn't to some extent based on what the split would be. There would have to be some differential for the two options
> The reduced expenditures for an only electronically-"delivered" Bulletin
> almost certainly would increase membership, but that increase would have to
> be balanced against the continuing costs of producing a hard-copy version
> for those wishing one; especially as the costs for each hard-copy most
> likely wouldn't decrease, and could very well increase.
>

Yes, exactly, the less you print the higher the cost per item
> Also to be
> considered would be an, almost certain, increase in the number of
> non-members having access to the Bulletin's contents for free. I have no
> doubt that happens with the hard-copy version, but I have no idea how
> widespread it is.
>

Not sure how you came to this Doug, if ever there was an option to go digital then there are a lot of considerations to be taken into account and I personally don't believe it is the correct way to go yet, as discussed all day yesterday.
> Perhaps a discount, in addition to any other(s) that might apply, could be
> offered for those electing to receive their copy electronically? Of course,
> the Society would run the risk that the ease in making *further* electronic
> copies wouldn't be offset by an increase in membership dues, whether with or
> without any discounts, but it might work it if the "electronic" discount
> wasn't for the *entire* amount being "saved".
> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be issued
> electronically; it's what to do until then...
>

If non members can view an index of previous articles then they can pick and choose what to purchase, but they would pay a premium for that information. Not sure if this is what you mean. As mentioned above, I think there are a lot of considerations to look at to make sure it is secure and that the membership doesn't actually go into a decline as opposed to a surge of new members.
> Doug
>
>

Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good. Imho if it aint broke dont fix it.

Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a week...can't be bad can it...eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be issued
> electronically; it's what to do until then...
> Doug
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting


> Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of
> re-posting it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than
> 50p a week...can't be bad can it...eileen

It's the lump sum that's painful if you're poor. Maybe we could have a
pay-by-month rate, slightly higher than the annual one. I don't mean only
be a member month by month - I mean sign up for a year and then pay in
monthly instalments. If the whole year fee breaks down to £2 a month, the
Society could charge £2.50 or £3 a month to pay in monthly instalments, make
a profit by doing so and still make the fee a lot less painful.

Claire, how about a jar? If you can put L2.50 in the mail, you can afford to put L2 in the jar, each month. Save it up, then post it once you've reached your goal. And keep putting cash in the jar for next year. Think of the sense of achievement.

Publications need funding up front to pay costs. And collecting funds piecemeal (especially if lots of people do this) would involve nightmarish book keeping (12x the current amount of labour, since it takes volunteers as much effort to post one monthly payment as it does to account for payment in full).

Judy,
who has long set aside funds for future use
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



 
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting

> Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of
> re-posting it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than
> 50p a week...can't be bad can it...eileen

It's the lump sum that's painful if you're poor. Maybe we could have a
pay-by-month rate, slightly higher than the annual one. I don't mean only
be a member month by month - I mean sign up for a year and then pay in
monthly instalments. If the whole year fee breaks down to £2 a month, the
Society could charge £2.50 or £3 a month to pay in monthly instalments, make
a profit by doing so and still make the fee a lot less painful.

From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


> Claire, how about a jar? If you can put L2.50 in the mail, you can afford
> to put L2 in the jar, each month.

Because if you have a sum of money big enough to do anything with where you
can get at it, there are *always* more urgent things it needs to be spent
on. Like e.g. heating the house (bearing in mind that my mother is 86 and
feels the cold).

You might look at publishing past issues of the Ricardian as ebooks on Amazon, with a 70% royalty from Amazon (internationally). You can protect the ebooks from copy and printing (DRM) so only the person who purchased the book can access it. Amazon's format allows for all versions of ebook readers, not just the Kindle. You can publish the books as collections (yearly) or individual issues. Amazon also lets you publish the printed versions through Smashwords.

If this isn't secure enough, there are ways to set up a marketing site on the Society's site and sell the things directly from the Society in multiple formats (ebooks, PDF). There are ways to imprint on every page of a PDF, "Licensed to [name of purchaser, physical address] so if the PDF is reproduced it can't be gotten ride of. You can also restrict a PDF from being copied, edited, printed -- as draconian as you want to get.

There are ways, but it requires the Society moving into the modern world of Internet technology. It isn't difficult, but it does require maintenance and attention to detail, and it requires a dedicated webmaster who knows what they're doing regarding creating the documents, uploading them, updating the pages offering them for sale. It requires someone willing to commit and run the thing *like a business* on an ongoing basis, rather than a hobby.

~Wednesday

--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra,
>
> I don't know if you are a member of the Society or not but if the Society made available to all the content of past journals on a fixed cost, would you pay for a specific item of interest? The cost would have to be representative of the work involved to get it to a member but it is another means of revenue
>
>
> On 5 May 2013, at 15:13, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, Claire. I certainly would.
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: Claire M Jordan
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:04 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> >
> > People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
> > in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
> > documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
> > to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
> > would pay extra just to show their support.
> >
> > From: Neil Trump
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> >
> > > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could
> > > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> > > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> > > will be at a financial loss.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

No wonder the Tudors had to alter his appearance and went overboard doing it. His face is open and his eyes are kind.

~Weds


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> It is almost like looking at a photograph of a contemporary individual, and not a recreation.

On 6 May 2013, at 18:12, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

>
>
> There are ways, but it requires the Society moving into the modern world of Internet technology. It isn't difficult, but it does require maintenance and attention to detail, and it requires a dedicated webmaster who knows what they're doing regarding creating the documents, uploading them, updating the pages offering them for sale. It requires someone willing to commit and run the thing *like a business* on an ongoing basis, rather than a hobby.
>
>

And I guess this is where the problem is, the Society does not have any paid staff to do this work. In reality I'm not sure there is enough work to keep one person gainfully employed full time and the opposite end probably says there is too much for one person to do it on an ad-hoc basis. Either way perhaps moving forward will actually incur a cost which will have to be passed on to the membership. Just when people think new technology is a bonus, it kicks up a whole raft of new problems.


> ~Wednesday
>
> --- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sandra,
> >
> > I don't know if you are a member of the Society or not but if the Society made available to all the content of past journals on a fixed cost, would you pay for a specific item of interest? The cost would have to be representative of the work involved to get it to a member but it is another means of revenue
> >
> >
> > On 5 May 2013, at 15:13, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed, Claire. I certainly would.
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > From: Claire M Jordan
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 3:04 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> > >
> > >
> > > People who are interested in Richard, though, tend to be *very* interested
> > > in Richard - if you stopped worrying too much about charging for access to
> > > documents but just stuck a note at the top asking for a suggested donation
> > > to be Paypalled to the Society, I think most people would pay it, and some
> > > would pay extra just to show their support.
> > >
> > > From: Neil Trump
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 2:46 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting
> > >
> > > > If a branch/group here had a membership of say 12 people, one person could
> > > > subscribe and then offer the access to the other 11 to see the
> > > > publication, local members gain but the society or whoever in this case
> > > > will be at a financial loss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Love this.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 5, 2013, at 12:45 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Oh...that is good!....I have to say I share your feeling Sandra...Its actually quite moving...eileen
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone seen this interesting composite of the NPG portrait and the reconstruction? Intriguing. I believe the site to be OK, Bitdefender hasn't gone gaga, gives it a green light.
> > http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ My feeling is that this likeness is probably spot on.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

If you look very carefully he seems to have little gold stud in his ears! His right our left. What is that all about....?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 6, 2013, at 4:05 AM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

> I too didn't like the lumpy hair on his left (our right, looking at him) so I had a little go with Paint Shop Pro. In some haste, I fear. I am NOT a professional, but just mess around now and then, so it's not brilliant, and I have made the hair a little too long, perhaps. And the angle might have been better calculated. But I think' the impression is better and more likely. I've uploaded it on the Forum page, Portraits album. Named it:-
>
> RIII adjusted  orig.tigerlight430.co.uk.
>
> It's the last one of the 25 portraits. I've acknowledged tigerlight430 because it is his/her original work, I didn't ask permission, but have not posted it on a public site without due nod. To be honest, the NPG portrait's odd hair looks to me as if someone painted out a falsely abnormal shoulder height and made a tatty job of it. Don't know who or why, but that's my impression. Something of that sort, anyway. That part of the portrait looks particularly tinkered with. I certainly cannot believe Richard went around with his hair in such a peculiar style. Nor can I believe, looking at his other likenesses, that he ever put stuff on it. Sorry, had stuff put on his hair  he wouldn't do it himself! I can't imagine him having a shave, patting himself dry with a towel, and then looking in the mirror, whistling between his teeth as he attended to his locks. <g>
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>

I do not understand why anyone would complain about paying 25UKP a year
to belong to the Society with all the research available through them.
So many people want something for nothing these days, for which the
internet is chiefly responsible. Just look at how many movies, tv
programmes and print magazines get distributed around the world for
free. Magazines as a result are closing down completely, as Neil
theorises so well, and film and tv companies can't afford to make more
programmes when they make no profits, or in a lot of cases, no break
even return.
25UKP is cheap if you ask me and worth it to keep the Ricardian cause alive.
Paul


On 06/05/2013 17:30, EileenB wrote:
> Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good. Imho if it aint broke dont fix it.
>
> Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a week...can't be bad can it...eileen
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be issued
>> electronically; it's what to do until then...
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul, well said. 

And if something is truly a priority, one budgets accordingly.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting



 
I do not understand why anyone would complain about paying 25UKP a year
to belong to the Society with all the research available through them.
So many people want something for nothing these days, for which the
internet is chiefly responsible. Just look at how many movies, tv
programmes and print magazines get distributed around the world for
free. Magazines as a result are closing down completely, as Neil
theorises so well, and film and tv companies can't afford to make more
programmes when they make no profits, or in a lot of cases, no break
even return.
25UKP is cheap if you ask me and worth it to keep the Ricardian cause alive.
Paul

On 06/05/2013 17:30, EileenB wrote:
> Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good. Imho if it aint broke dont fix it.
>
> Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a week...can't be bad can it...eileen
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be issued
>> electronically; it's what to do until then...
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Absolutely - it must be one of the cheapest societies you can join. And the VFM, given the knowledge pool that you get, is fantastic.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 14:33
Subject: Re: Re: Special General Meeting


 

I do not understand why anyone would complain about paying 25UKP a year
to belong to the Society with all the research available through them.
So many people want something for nothing these days, for which the
internet is chiefly responsible. Just look at how many movies, tv
programmes and print magazines get distributed around the world for
free. Magazines as a result are closing down completely, as Neil
theorises so well, and film and tv companies can't afford to make more
programmes when they make no profits, or in a lot of cases, no break
even return.
25UKP is cheap if you ask me and worth it to keep the Ricardian cause alive.
Paul

On 06/05/2013 17:30, EileenB wrote:
> Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good. Imho if it aint broke dont fix it.
>
> Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a week...can't be bad can it...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be issued
>> electronically; it's what to do until then...
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

EileenB wrote:

Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."

Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
You know, when we old fogies are gone!

"Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a
week...can't be bad can it...eileen"

I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
month, which I can definitely afford.
Doug

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
<destama@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
> issued
> electronically; it's what to do until then...
> Doug
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Doug...$1 is aboout 65p...so roughly about £3 per month. I suppose you will be paying a bit more for postage which has gone up lately here. Not bad eh...when you think how enjoyable it is when your Bulletin drops through your letterbox. I noticed from the last Bulletin there were 150 new members from the UK and and about 20 from overseas...So it cannot be bad. The Society is unique I think...and call me an old fogie but I like it as it is. By just clicking on to the website there is a wealth of information available, free, already, about Richard. Articles covering his life, family, leadership, and the controversy. If, say, you click onto 'The Controversy" you then have further articles re the Princes, alleged crimes and Marie's cracking article on the Pre-contract. There is also information on the places where Richard lived. All for free! If a newcomer read those very informative articles they could come onto the forum quite knowledgable.

When you get the actual Bulletin there are numerous outings visiting Ricardian sites...interesting/informative articles...covering a multitude of stuff. I always but always find something I can learn something from. There are book reviews, a letter page...and updates on visits to various places...I think, when you consider that it costs £2.50 to have a cup of coffee, I think it's very good value. Long live the Society...and in hard copy form...please...Eileen

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EileenB wrote:
>
> Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
> membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
> of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
> enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
> Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."
>
> Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
> years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
> You know, when we old fogies are gone!
>
> "Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
> it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a
> week...can't be bad can it...eileen"
>
> I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
> I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
> membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
> in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
> month, which I can definitely afford.
> Doug
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
> > issued
> > electronically; it's what to do until then...
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Oh and Ive just received my first email in what is going to be a regular series called 'Focus On'. "These emails will be about particular projects, people, places, events that we hope will be of interest to Ricardians everywhere'.. This email is focusing on Boar Badges...By tonight what I don't know about Boar Badges will be able to be printed on a postage stamp...:0):0) Eileen



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Doug...$1 is aboout 65p...so roughly about £3 per month. I suppose you will be paying a bit more for postage which has gone up lately here. Not bad eh...when you think how enjoyable it is when your Bulletin drops through your letterbox. I noticed from the last Bulletin there were 150 new members from the UK and and about 20 from overseas...So it cannot be bad. The Society is unique I think...and call me an old fogie but I like it as it is. By just clicking on to the website there is a wealth of information available, free, already, about Richard. Articles covering his life, family, leadership, and the controversy. If, say, you click onto 'The Controversy" you then have further articles re the Princes, alleged crimes and Marie's cracking article on the Pre-contract. There is also information on the places where Richard lived. All for free! If a newcomer read those very informative articles they could come onto the forum quite knowledgable.
>
> When you get the actual Bulletin there are numerous outings visiting Ricardian sites...interesting/informative articles...covering a multitude of stuff. I always but always find something I can learn something from. There are book reviews, a letter page...and updates on visits to various places...I think, when you consider that it costs £2.50 to have a cup of coffee, I think it's very good value. Long live the Society...and in hard copy form...please...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > EileenB wrote:
> >
> > Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
> > membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
> > of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
> > enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
> > Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."
> >
> > Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
> > years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
> > You know, when we old fogies are gone!
> >
> > "Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> > excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> > to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
> > it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a
> > week...can't be bad can it...eileen"
> >
> > I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
> > I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
> > membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
> > in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
> > month, which I can definitely afford.
> > Doug
> >
> > --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
> > > issued
> > > electronically; it's what to do until then...
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

You're right. It costs about three times as much to rent an allotment for a year and all you get is a couple of onions and a bad back!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 17:38
Subject: Re: Special General Meeting


 

Doug...$1 is aboout 65p...so roughly about £3 per month. I suppose you will be paying a bit more for postage which has gone up lately here. Not bad eh...when you think how enjoyable it is when your Bulletin drops through your letterbox. I noticed from the last Bulletin there were 150 new members from the UK and and about 20 from overseas...So it cannot be bad. The Society is unique I think...and call me an old fogie but I like it as it is. By just clicking on to the website there is a wealth of information available, free, already, about Richard. Articles covering his life, family, leadership, and the controversy. If, say, you click onto 'The Controversy" you then have further articles re the Princes, alleged crimes and Marie's cracking article on the Pre-contract. There is also information on the places where Richard lived. All for free! If a newcomer read those very informative articles they could come onto the forum quite knowledgable.

When you get the actual Bulletin there are numerous outings visiting Ricardian sites...interesting/informative articles...covering a multitude of stuff. I always but always find something I can learn something from. There are book reviews, a letter page...and updates on visits to various places...I think, when you consider that it costs £2.50 to have a cup of coffee, I think it's very good value. Long live the Society...and in hard copy form...please...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> EileenB wrote:
>
> Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
> membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
> of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
> enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
> Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."
>
> Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
> years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
> You know, when we old fogies are gone!
>
> "Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
> it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a
> week...can't be bad can it...eileen"
>
> I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
> I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
> membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
> in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
> month, which I can definitely afford.
> Doug
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
> > issued
> > electronically; it's what to do until then...
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Me too Eileen, and I think it is worth the expense, and a gift to those who want to know more, more, more (as opposed to More)!

On May 7, 2013, at 11:50 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Oh and Ive just received my first email in what is going to be a regular series called 'Focus On'. "These emails will be about particular projects, people, places, events that we hope will be of interest to Ricardians everywhere'.. This email is focusing on Boar Badges...By tonight what I don't know about Boar Badges will be able to be printed on a postage stamp...:0):0) Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Doug...$1 is aboout 65p...so roughly about ý3 per month. I suppose you will be paying a bit more for postage which has gone up lately here. Not bad eh...when you think how enjoyable it is when your Bulletin drops through your letterbox. I noticed from the last Bulletin there were 150 new members from the UK and and about 20 from overseas...So it cannot be bad. The Society is unique I think...and call me an old fogie but I like it as it is. By just clicking on to the website there is a wealth of information available, free, already, about Richard. Articles covering his life, family, leadership, and the controversy. If, say, you click onto 'The Controversy" you then have further articles re the Princes, alleged crimes and Marie's cracking article on the Pre-contract. There is also information on the places where Richard lived. All for free! If a newcomer read those very informative articles they could come onto the forum quite knowledgable.
>
> When you get the actual Bulletin there are numerous outings visiting Ricardian sites...interesting/informative articles...covering a multitude of stuff. I always but always find something I can learn something from. There are book reviews, a letter page...and updates on visits to various places...I think, when you consider that it costs ý2.50 to have a cup of coffee, I think it's very good value. Long live the Society...and in hard copy form...please...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > EileenB wrote:
> >
> > Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
> > membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
> > of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
> > enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
> > Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."
> >
> > Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
> > years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
> > You know, when we old fogies are gone!
> >
> > "Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> > excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> > to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
> > it. All of this for about roughly ý2 per month...or less than 50p a
> > week...can't be bad can it...eileen"
> >
> > I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
> > I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
> > membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
> > in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
> > month, which I can definitely afford.
> > Doug
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
> > > issued
> > > electronically; it's what to do until then...
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

I shouldn't laugh, as I symapathise with your back problem, but I did
when I read this!
thanks Hilary!
Paul

On 07/05/2013 17:52, Hilary Jones wrote:
> You're right. It costs about three times as much to rent an allotment for a year and all you get is a couple of onions and a bad back!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 17:38
> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>
>
> Doug...$1 is aboout 65p...so roughly about £3 per month. I suppose you will be paying a bit more for postage which has gone up lately here. Not bad eh...when you think how enjoyable it is when your Bulletin drops through your letterbox. I noticed from the last Bulletin there were 150 new members from the UK and and about 20 from overseas...So it cannot be bad. The Society is unique I think...and call me an old fogie but I like it as it is. By just clicking on to the website there is a wealth of information available, free, already, about Richard. Articles covering his life, family, leadership, and the controversy. If, say, you click onto 'The Controversy" you then have further articles re the Princes, alleged crimes and Marie's cracking article on the Pre-contract. There is also information on the places where Richard lived. All for free! If a newcomer read those very informative articles they could come onto the forum quite knowledgable.
>
> When you get the actual Bulletin there are numerous outings visiting Ricardian sites...interesting/informative articles...covering a multitude of stuff. I always but always find something I can learn something from. There are book reviews, a letter page...and updates on visits to various places...I think, when you consider that it costs £2.50 to have a cup of coffee, I think it's very good value. Long live the Society...and in hard copy form...please...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>> EileenB wrote:
>>
>> Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
>> membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
>> of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
>> enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
>> Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."
>>
>> Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
>> years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
>> You know, when we old fogies are gone!
>>
>> "Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
>> excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
>> to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
>> it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a
>> week...can't be bad can it...eileen"
>>
>> I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
>> I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
>> membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
>> in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
>> month, which I can definitely afford.
>> Doug
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
>> <destama@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
>>> issued
>>> electronically; it's what to do until then...
>>> Doug
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Very OT...lol..the last lot of tomatoes we..the royal we that is...worked out it had cost us about £2 per tomato...eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You're right. It costs about three times as much to rent an allotment for a year and all you get is a couple of onions and a bad back!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2013, 17:38
> Subject: Re: Special General Meeting
>
>
>  
>
> Doug...$1 is aboout 65p...so roughly about £3 per month. I suppose you will be paying a bit more for postage which has gone up lately here. Not bad eh...when you think how enjoyable it is when your Bulletin drops through your letterbox. I noticed from the last Bulletin there were 150 new members from the UK and and about 20 from overseas...So it cannot be bad. The Society is unique I think...and call me an old fogie but I like it as it is. By just clicking on to the website there is a wealth of information available, free, already, about Richard. Articles covering his life, family, leadership, and the controversy. If, say, you click onto 'The Controversy" you then have further articles re the Princes, alleged crimes and Marie's cracking article on the Pre-contract. There is also information on the places where Richard lived. All for free! If a newcomer read those very informative articles they could come onto the forum quite knowledgable.
>
> When you get the actual Bulletin there are numerous outings visiting Ricardian sites...interesting/informative articles...covering a multitude of stuff. I always but always find something I can learn something from. There are book reviews, a letter page...and updates on visits to various places...I think, when you consider that it costs £2.50 to have a cup of coffee, I think it's very good value. Long live the Society...and in hard copy form...please...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > EileenB wrote:
> >
> > Doug I hope you are wrong here....I for one dont think I would keep my
> > membership going if that were the case. I look forward to receiving my copy
> > of the Bulletin and its nice to kep them to refer back to. I think I spend
> > enough time peering at my laptop screen which Im sure does my eyes no good.
> > Imho if it aint broke dont fix it."
> >
> > Oh no, I was thinking along the lines of sometime during the next 10-20
> > years and most likely towards the further end of that period.
> > You know, when we old fogies are gone!
> >
> > "Referring to the costs etc., I dont think the price of membership is
> > excessive. For that I get 4 Bulletins a year and one Ricardian. I am able
> > to borrow loads of stuff from the Barton Library for the cost of re-posting
> > it. All of this for about roughly £2 per month...or less than 50p a
> > week...can't be bad can it...eileen"
> >
> > I've just completed my first year of being retired and know, roughly, what
> > I'm going to have left over after meeting necessary expenditures so my
> > membership application is going in at the end of this month. For me in here
> > in the US, applying for membership in the UK Society will cost about $6 a
> > month, which I can definitely afford.
> > Doug
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> > <destama@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, I have no doubt that eventually the Bulletin will only be
> > > issued
> > > electronically; it's what to do until then...
> > > Doug
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>