Coming up

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I am dreading it too Paul.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Their nationalities are the least of our worries.  I personally don't care where they're from as long as they can act (and we'll soon find out.)
 

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 11:25
Subject: Coming up

 
Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.

Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up


Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!



-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why someone from another country would do a better job.

On May 9, 2013, at 12:29 PM, "khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:



Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Have you seen the trailers?!!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:06
Subject: Re: Coming up


 

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her portraits show her with brown hair.



________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 


Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Perhaps it comes down to the money and the fact that the good ones are more selective (sorry!)



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:34
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why someone from another country would do a better job.

On May 9, 2013, at 12:29 PM, "khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:



Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

The programme on the Tudors looks better though, I think it was you who pointed it out. The trailer for that really hits out at our Henry.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 11:25
Subject: Coming up


 

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.

Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
the images.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
someone from another country would do a better job.

No....... not good are they...I can tell by your question/expression marks.....:0/

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you seen the trailers?!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:06
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
>  
>
> Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> > Coming soon!
> > The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> > Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> > with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> > so good.
> > But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> > which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> > that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> > periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> > ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> > I am dreading it!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh yes indeed - I QUITE see what you mean! 

--- On Thu, 9/5/13, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
To:
Date: Thursday, 9 May, 2013, 19:39




Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't

watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is

absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,

but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,

the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at

the images.

I think Pamela meant the Swede . 
 
I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have.  Dream on ....
 
As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 
Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.

Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
the images.

Sandra

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
someone from another country would do a better job.

No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I think Pamela meant the Swede . 
>  
> I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have.  Dream on ....
>  
> As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>  
> Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
>
> Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> the images.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> someone from another country would do a better job.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry 4 lions.


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I think Pamela meant the Swede . 
> >  
> > I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have.  Dream on ....
> >  
> > As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> >
> >  
> > Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> > I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> > the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> > he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> > doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> > Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> > in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> > Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
> >
> > Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> > watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> > absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> > but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> > the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> > the images.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> >
> > But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> > someone from another country would do a better job.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well the red dragon of the Britons appears in the Merlin legend in Geoffrey of Monmouth which was written about 800  years ago  (fighting the white dragon of the Saxons allegedly) and has been associated with Wales for a long time even if the current version is fairly new. 
 
I certainly don't want three lions thanks very much - that's the England football team!


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 20:38
Subject: Re: Coming up

 
No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I think Pamela meant the Swede . 
>  
> I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have.  Dream on ....
>  
> As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>  
> Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
>
> Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> the images.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> someone from another country would do a better job.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'll keep the red dragon as well, thank you very much. Lions, schmions, everyone has them. Forfeit our dragon because of some invading chancer's dubious background? Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandra


From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


Well the red dragon of the Britons appears in the Merlin legend in Geoffrey of Monmouth which was written about 800 years ago (fighting the white dragon of the Saxons allegedly) and has been associated with Wales for a long time even if the current version is fairly new.

I certainly don't want three lions thanks very much - that's the England football team!

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 20:38
Subject: Re: Coming up


No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I think Pamela meant the Swede .Â
> Â
> I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have. Dream on ....
> Â
> As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> Â
> Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
>
> Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> the images.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> someone from another country would do a better job.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'll still keep the dragon thanks.  It's too associated with Wales to change it.  But I am "so" glad that Llewellyn Fawr wasn't a supporter of the England football team :-)



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: Coming up

 
Sorry 4 lions.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I think Pamela meant the Swede . 
> >  
> > I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have.  Dream on ....
> >  
> > As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> >
> >  
> > Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> > I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> > the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> > he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> > doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> > Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> > in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> > Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
> >
> > Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> > watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> > absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> > but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> > the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> > the images.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> >
> > But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> > someone from another country would do a better job.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I know what you mean but I just can't help feeling a bit fed up that our flag is the Tydders.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'll still keep the dragon thanks.  It's too associated with Wales to change it.  But I am "so" glad that Llewellyn Fawr wasn't a supporter of the England football team :-)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 20:42
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>  
> Sorry 4 lions.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Pamela meant the Swede . 
> > >  
> > > I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have.  Dream on ....
> > >  
> > > As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> > >
> > >  
> > > Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> > > I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> > > the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> > > he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> > > doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> > > Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> > > in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> > > Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
> > >
> > > Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> > > watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> > > absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> > > but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> > > the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> > > the images.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> > >
> > > But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> > > someone from another country would do a better job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sandra answering, not Liz. But where did the Tydder get the dragon in the first place, eh? He pinched it, as he pinched everything else. It had long been around as a Welsh symbol, and he thought it would look nice on his mantel, between the candlesticks and the pics of MB. Oh, and not bad on the battlefield either.


From: ricard1an
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Coming up


I know what you mean but I just can't help feeling a bit fed up that our flag is the Tydders.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'll still keep the dragon thanks. It's too associated with Wales to change it. But I am "so" glad that Llewellyn Fawr wasn't a supporter of the England football team :-)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 20:42
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
> Â
> Sorry 4 lions.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Pamela meant the Swede .ÂÂ
> > > ÂÂ
> > > I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have. Dream on ....
> > > ÂÂ
> > > As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> > > I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> > > the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> > > he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> > > doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> > > Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> > > in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> > > Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
> > >
> > > Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> > > watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> > > absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> > > but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> > > the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> > > the images.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> > >
> > > But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> > > someone from another country would do a better job.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

'Men' in armour (of questionable date, where are you George?) marching with flag. Armour cast off to reveal EW looking Swedish, Jacquetta (I think) and MB looking like hamster - with some commentary implying wars not fought by men.



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:40
Subject: Re: Coming up


 

No....... not good are they...I can tell by your question/expression marks.....:0/

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Have you seen the trailers?!!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:06
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
>  
>
> Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> > Coming soon!
> > The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> > Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> > with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> > so good.
> > But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> > which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> > that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> > periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> > ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> > I am dreading it!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think that he claims that the Tudors were descended from Cadwallader. The dragon flag was his symbol. I read an article about him some time ago and from what I remember he was a younger son and a bit of a trouble maker. Will try to find it again. The Tudors were descended from Ednyfed Fychan who was Llewellyn the Great's steward. Richard and Edward, on the other hand, were descended from Llewellyn through his daughter Gwladys, who married one of the Mortimers.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra answering, not Liz. But where did the Tydder get the dragon in the first place, eh? He pinched it, as he pinched everything else. It had long been around as a Welsh symbol, and he thought it would look nice on his mantel, between the candlesticks and the pics of MB. Oh, and not bad on the battlefield either.
>
>
> From: ricard1an
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
> I know what you mean but I just can't help feeling a bit fed up that our flag is the Tydders.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll still keep the dragon thanks. It's too associated with Wales to change it. But I am "so" glad that Llewellyn Fawr wasn't a supporter of the England football team :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 20:42
> > Subject: Re: Coming up
> >
> > Â
> > Sorry 4 lions.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No Liz that is the Weasle's Dragon of Cadwallader. The Welsh Flag should be Llewellyn the Great's flag which I think is 3 lions. If JAH proves that the Weasle is a Beaufort or a Swynford we will have to change the Welsh Flag. Apparently the Red Dragon of Cadwallader was only designated as the Welsh Flag in 1959.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think Pamela meant the Swede .ÂÂ
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > I'd love to have a Welsh passport - in red with a dragon on the front instead ot he EU thing we have. Dream on ....
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > As for Blake Ritson - I just googled and oh "yes"!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 19:39
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> > > > I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> > > > the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> > > > he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> > > > doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> > > > Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> > > > in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> > > > Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
> > > >
> > > > Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> > > > watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> > > > absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> > > > but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> > > > the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> > > > the images.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> > > >
> > > > But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> > > > someone from another country would do a better job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I too know of the steward versus Llewellyn's daughter', but cannot remember where. On the Forum perhaps?. Thus Richard was more royally Welsh than Henry. Poor Henry, he killed a king and stole the crown, but never outshone his predecessor. No breeding or charisma.

Sandra


From: ricard1an
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Coming up

I think that he claims that the Tudors were descended from Cadwallader. The dragon flag was his symbol. I read an article about him some time ago and from what I remember he was a younger son and a bit of a trouble maker. Will try to find it again. The Tudors were descended from Ednyfed Fychan who was Llewellyn the Great's steward. Richard and Edward, on the other hand, were descended from Llewellyn through his daughter Gwladys, who married one of the Mortimers.

True, that. Tey refers to it, but is obviously quoting someone else.

Here's a portrait of her circa 1471 -- sure looks like brown hair very tightly pulled back and tucked under her headdress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElizabethWoodville.JPG


Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and I've
been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her portraits
show her with brown hair.



________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up




Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e.,
platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a
heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that
took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be
surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/










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

Yahoo! Groups Links

-khafara@... wrote:
>
> Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.
>
> Tamara

Carol responds:

Actually, "silver-gilt" appears to be Sharon Kay Penman's adjective. Earlier sources, if I recall correctly, simply said "gilt" (golden). Her portraits also suggest golden rather than platinum (or even the brownish-blonde of once-golden hair). I know we've discussed this topic in previous threads if you're interested enough to do a site search.

But the adjective seems to have taken on a life of its own, along with so much related to Richard and his associates.

Carol

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her portraits show her with brown hair.

Carol responds:

And Penman, who must have gotten the detail from Williamson. I don't suppose you have a page number handy for Williamson's reference?

Carol

Tamara wrote:
>
> True, that. Tey refers to it, but is obviously quoting someone else.

Carol responds:

Oh, right. I'd forgotten Tey, who must be the source for both Williamson and Penman, if you can call a novelist a source. I don't think that Tey's chief source, Clements Markham, refers to EW's hair color, but since I've been wrong in the last two posts (blush), I could be wrong again here. At any rate, I don't think that Tey is quoting someone else since the book she quotes called "The Rose of Raby" is imaginary. (There *is* a book with that title, but it's nothing like the one she quotes from, which is written in the same style as "Daughter of Time" and is almost certainly Tey's own fiction within a fiction.) Tey also speaks of EW as "indestructibly virtuous," which always annoys me since withholding sex for marriage and a crown is not virtue, just practicality (with perhaps a touch of rapaciousness to judge from her behavior on other occasions).

Carol

"Tey also speaks of EW as "indestructibly virtuous," which always annoys me since withholding sex for marriage and a crown is not virtue, just practicality (with perhaps a touch of rapaciousness to judge from her behavior on other occasions)."

A-yep. I suspect that there was more than a hint of sarcasm in that description. (Anne Boleyn, six decades later, used a similar method to reel in EW's and EIV's grandson, HVIII.)

Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up



Tamara wrote:
>
> True, that. Tey refers to it, but is obviously quoting someone else.

Carol responds:

Oh, right. I'd forgotten Tey, who must be the source for both Williamson and
Penman, if you can call a novelist a source. I don't think that Tey's chief
source, Clements Markham, refers to EW's hair color, but since I've been wrong
in the last two posts (blush), I could be wrong again here. At any rate, I don't
think that Tey is quoting someone else since the book she quotes called "The
Rose of Raby" is imaginary. (There *is* a book with that title, but it's nothing
like the one she quotes from, which is written in the same style as "Daughter of
Time" and is almost certainly Tey's own fiction within a fiction.) Tey also
speaks of EW as "indestructibly virtuous," which always annoys me since
withholding sex for marriage and a crown is not virtue, just practicality (with
perhaps a touch of rapaciousness to judge from her behavior on other occasions).

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Agreed, he looks great in chainmail! ; )

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
>
> Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> the images.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> someone from another country would do a better job.
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> Well the red dragon of the Britons appears in the Merlin legend in
> Geoffrey of Monmouth which was written about 800 years ago (fighting the
> white dragon of the Saxons allegedly) and has been associated with Wales
> for a long time even if the current version is fairly new.

Just what I was thinking. "Britons" in the Arthurian period meant people
living in a strip down the west coast of the mainland from Loch Lomond all
the way down to Cornwall, including Dumfries and Galloway, the Lake
District, the Forest of Dean and the West Country as well as the whole of
Wales, and they all spoke a form of Welsh. I suppose we don't know whether
the red dragon was already associated with this Welsh-speaking population in
the 6th C but it was *being* associated with them by other people a few
hundred years later.

[Still wondering why the great boar in the Arthurian mythos had a set of
hairdressing equipment stuck between its ears. What was that all about -
other than the fact that a lot of Celtic myths sound like the original
author had been eating dodgy mushrooms?]

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt"
> (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if
> EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the
> Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings,
> wouldn't be surprising.

Even her French ancestors may have been Norman French - does anybody know?
But "silver-gilt" *may* have been Tey's own interpretation, along with
Richard being dark in a fair family. Her most famous portrait only shows a
tiny bit of hair but what there is suggests she was either red-blonde or the
sort of caramel colour that's teetering on the point between blonde and
light brown. [And Richard of course had brown-to-auburn hair in a
brown-haired family.]

Ch 1 Page 29 - she actually says 'gilt' but doesn't attach a note to it.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 1:35
Subject: Re: Coming up

 


Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her portraits show her with brown hair.

Carol responds:

And Penman, who must have gotten the detail from Williamson. I don't suppose you have a page number handy for Williamson's reference?

Carol

Hi Carol, I can't find reference to Elizabeth's hair colouring in Markham and Laynesmith in the 'Last Medieval Queens' discussing hair colour of Margaret of Anjou, EOY, Anne Neville and EW says that 'no contemporary reference to Elizabeth's hair colour survives' (though it does for the other three) and the belief that she had fair hair may have come from the idealised portrait made for the Company of Skinners. Late medieval queens were supposed to look like the Virgin who was depicted with blonde hair. It is likely though, that it tended towards the fair rather than dark because Margaret was actually referred to as 'beautiful but somewhat dark'.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 1:55
Subject: Re: Coming up

 


Tamara wrote:
>
> True, that. Tey refers to it, but is obviously quoting someone else.

Carol responds:

Oh, right. I'd forgotten Tey, who must be the source for both Williamson and Penman, if you can call a novelist a source. I don't think that Tey's chief source, Clements Markham, refers to EW's hair color, but since I've been wrong in the last two posts (blush), I could be wrong again here. At any rate, I don't think that Tey is quoting someone else since the book she quotes called "The Rose of Raby" is imaginary. (There *is* a book with that title, but it's nothing like the one she quotes from, which is written in the same style as "Daughter of Time" and is almost certainly Tey's own fiction within a fiction.) Tey also speaks of EW as "indestructibly virtuous," which always annoys me since withholding sex for marriage and a crown is not virtue, just practicality (with perhaps a touch of rapaciousness to judge from her behavior on other occasions).

Carol

Yes I remember that wonderful Yorkshire actress Juliette Binoche as
Cathy in Wuthering Heights. Her Parisian accent so helped bring the
small of the Yorkshire Moors to the audience!:-)
Paul


On 09/05/2013 18:29, khafara@... wrote:
> Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> rote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Individual Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

World Without End? melodrama that went on forever more like. Dreadful
show, and the last person I imagine as the macho Edward III was the
actor playing him, who looked as if he wanted to be somewhere else most
of the time! He's just turned up in Da Vinci's Dreams playing the
bastard son of the Pope who is also a sadistic torturer. This time he
looks as if he's enjoying himself!
Paul


On 09/05/2013 19:39, SandraMachin wrote:
> Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
>
> Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> the images.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> someone from another country would do a better job.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I dreaded to say it, but now you have - he looks like one of Jane Austen's bounders, a Wickham or a Willoughby. No!! Our Richard is much more sensitive.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 13:00
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

World Without End? melodrama that went on forever more like. Dreadful
show, and the last person I imagine as the macho Edward III was the
actor playing him, who looked as if he wanted to be somewhere else most
of the time! He's just turned up in Da Vinci's Dreams playing the
bastard son of the Pope who is also a sadistic torturer. This time he
looks as if he's enjoying himself!
Paul

On 09/05/2013 19:39, SandraMachin wrote:
> Um, the Welsh do come under the heading of present-day British? No? If not,
> I shouldn't have a British passport, just something issued in Cardiff for
> the Welsh only. My only 'complaint' about the actor playing Richard is that
> he is too round and cherubic. Apart from being shortish and 'dark', he
> doesn't look like my idea of Richard. Richard needs to be lean. But then,
> Max Irons doesn't look like my idea of Edward IV either. Beauty is clearly
> in the eye of the beholder, and whoever was in charge of casting 'The White
> Queen' should have gone to Specsavers.
>
> Having just watched World Without End (had it recorded for ages, didn't
> watch until this week) I have to say that Blake Ritson as Edward III is
> absolutely my idea of Richard. I've said before that I thought he was ideal,
> but that was before seeing him actually playing a Plantagenet king, armour,
> the lot. Spot on. Just Google blake ritson world without end and look at
> the images.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:34 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> But there are so many amazing British actors/actresses. I cannot imagine why
> someone from another country would do a better job.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

:)



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 12:56
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

Yes I remember that wonderful Yorkshire actress Juliette Binoche as
Cathy in Wuthering Heights. Her Parisian accent so helped bring the
small of the Yorkshire Moors to the audience!:-)
Paul

On 09/05/2013 18:29, mailto:khafara%40aol.com wrote:
> Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> rote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Individual Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Heh! Just for you, I'll call up the producers and tell them to hire Renee Zellwiger. ;-)




-----Original Message-----
From: hjnatdat@...
To: <>
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 3:16 am
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up



:)

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 12:56
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Yes I remember that wonderful Yorkshire actress Juliette Binoche as
Cathy in Wuthering Heights. Her Parisian accent so helped bring the
small of the Yorkshire Moors to the audience!:-)
Paul

On 09/05/2013 18:29, mailto:khafara%40aol.com wrote:
> Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e.,
platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a
heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that
took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be
surprising.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...>
> rote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Individual Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> Hi Carol, I can't find reference to Elizabeth's hair colouring in Markham
> and Laynesmith in the 'Last Medieval Queens' discussing hair colour of
> Margaret of Anjou, EOY, Anne Neville and EW says that 'no contemporary
> reference to Elizabeth's hair colour survives' (though it does for the
> other three)

What do we have for EoY and Anne?

Agreed, Paul. Regarding the portrayal of Edward III. Not that I think the actor could do much about it because that is what the script demanded. I can't speak of how it was done in the original book, because I haven't read it. But I really cannot imagine Edward III being quite that uncertain of himself  and was he actually smallish? Most of his nobles loomed over him. That is not to say I did not like the way the drama was done, because I did. I always feel Edward III should have been a strapping six-footer who could beat seven shades of whatnot out of anyone, but I really do not know anything for sure. I have never actually studied him. I'm awaiting delivery of Mortimer's The Perfect King', in the hope of finding out, so the show certainly interested me to that extent. I want to know more about the real Edward III. I began to get a little worried in the drama when there were cuddly' scenes between Edward and his young daughter Joan. I couldn't actually work out what they achieved, except perhaps that he was a very fond, touchy-feely father. Or were we supposed to wonder? A little confusing. Anyway, when I posted about Blake Ritson and Richard, I simply thought he looked the part, and was sensitive' enough to do it very well. And yes, he's turned up in Da Vinci's Demons, having a whale of a time as a sadistic little creep! Love it.

Sandra

From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

World Without End? melodrama that went on forever more like. Dreadful
show, and the last person I imagine as the macho Edward III was the
actor playing him, who looked as if he wanted to be somewhere else most
of the time! He's just turned up in Da Vinci's Dreams playing the
bastard son of the Pope who is also a sadistic torturer. This time he
looks as if he's enjoying himself!
Paul

We have 'faire yellow Hair' from the Milanese ambassador about EOY's coronation and Crowland saying that she and Anne Neville were 'alike in complexion' when they wore the same dresses at Christmas 1484. He had no reason to lie, as he was condemning it.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 11:44
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

> Hi Carol, I can't find reference to Elizabeth's hair colouring in Markham
> and Laynesmith in the 'Last Medieval Queens' discussing hair colour of
> Margaret of Anjou, EOY, Anne Neville and EW says that 'no contemporary
> reference to Elizabeth's hair colour survives' (though it does for the
> other three)

What do we have for EoY and Anne?

True  he was Mr. Elton in Emma. Aw, go on, I'm sure he's very nice really. <grin>

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:15 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

I dreaded to say it, but now you have - he looks like one of Jane Austen's bounders, a Wickham or a Willoughby. No!! Our Richard is much more sensitive.

That's it! Once a bounder always a bounder - sorry, at least he wasn't Mr Collins! As you say he could be very nice :)



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 13:57
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

True  he was Mr. Elton in Emma. Aw, go on, I'm sure he's very nice really. <grin>

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:15 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

I dreaded to say it, but now you have - he looks like one of Jane Austen's bounders, a Wickham or a Willoughby. No!! Our Richard is much more sensitive.

There seems to be much more documentation (online at any rate) of the family history for EW's mother, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, than for her father Richard Woodville.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquetta_of_Luxembourg

Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 12:56 am
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


From: khafara@...
o:
ent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:29 PM
ubject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt"
(i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if
EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the
Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings,
wouldn't be surprising.
Even her French ancestors may have been Norman French - does anybody know?
ut "silver-gilt" *may* have been Tey's own interpretation, along with
ichard being dark in a fair family. Her most famous portrait only shows a
iny bit of hair but what there is suggests she was either red-blonde or the
ort of caramel colour that's teetering on the point between blonde and
ight brown. [And Richard of course had brown-to-auburn hair in a
rown-haired family.]

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> World Without End? melodrama that went on forever more like. Dreadful
show, and the last person I imagine as the macho Edward III was the
actor playing him, who looked as if he wanted to be somewhere else most
of the time!

I have to agree I can't really see him as Richard either - too sort-of
pretty-pretty and yet a bit sweaty, and way too small a jaw.

Matt Smitth is a much better match for Richard facially imo - see here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4094067/Casting-Matt-Smith-shows-that-Doctor-Who-is-a-savvy-multi-million-pound-brand.html,
especially the *second* image which you have to click on the first one to
get to - and he has the right slender build and floppy brown hair, is 31 and
is an award-winning actor. But unfortunately he's *way* too tall.

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> I'll keep the red dragon as well, thank you very much. Lions, schmions,
> everyone has them. Forfeit our dragon because of some invading chancer's
> dubious background? Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's more, the emblem of the King of Scots is also a lion. If we had
three lions for England, four for Wales and one for Scotland it would get
too much like Longleat - we might as well have naked wifelets as supporters.

Btw, if any of you are ever in Edinburgh and going to the Museum of
Scotland, spare some time to look at The Bruce's mazer. This is an enormous
silver punchbowl decorated inside with the enamelled shields of all the
nobles at Bruce's court, but at the centre is a 3d sculpture of what's meant
to be the lion of the King of Scots. Unfortunately it's a lion sculpted by
somebody who had never seen a lion but had only heard one described. It
looks like a demented baboon that's been at the punch - it's wonderful.

Oh no! Not Matt Smith. Nothing like Richard  to me, anyway. His face isn't refined enough and even though it's thin, somehow manages to be puddingy. Sorry. Ideal actors are certainly in the eye of the beholder. Actually, I'm really enjoying World Without End, and am surprised that others found it so tedious. It just goes to show you can please some of the people some of the time... I thought Pillars of the Earth was interesting, but didn't want to watch it again. Unless the final two episodes of World Without End prove disastrous, I really like it and will certainly watch it more than once. And no, not because of Edward III! I'm not that shallow. Honest. <vbg>

Sandra


From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
Matt Smitth is a much better match for Richard facially imo - see here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4094067/Casting-Matt-Smith-shows-that-Doctor-Who-is-a-savvy-multi-million-pound-brand.html,
especially the *second* image which you have to click on the first one to
get to - and he has the right slender build and floppy brown hair, is 31 and
is an award-winning actor. But unfortunately he's *way* too tall.

We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc., Not too sure about battle scenes..

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: SandraMachin
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>
> > I’ll keep the red dragon as well, thank you very much. Lions, schmions,
> > everyone has them. Forfeit our dragon because of some invading chancer’s
> > dubious background? Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> What's more, the emblem of the King of Scots is also a lion. If we had
> three lions for England, four for Wales and one for Scotland it would get
> too much like Longleat - we might as well have naked wifelets as supporters.
>
> Btw, if any of you are ever in Edinburgh and going to the Museum of
> Scotland, spare some time to look at The Bruce's mazer. This is an enormous
> silver punchbowl decorated inside with the enamelled shields of all the
> nobles at Bruce's court, but at the centre is a 3d sculpture of what's meant
> to be the lion of the King of Scots. Unfortunately it's a lion sculpted by
> somebody who had never seen a lion but had only heard one described. It
> looks like a demented baboon that's been at the punch - it's wonderful.
>

Oh, Eileen! What a thought.

Sandra

From: EileenB
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Coming up

We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc., Not too sure about battle scenes..

Liz and I had a conversation about this very subject before on here some time ago...but it zoomed so far of topic....Alan Ladd was mentioned! ...we had to call a halt...:0)

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc., Not too sure about battle scenes..
>
>
>
>
>
>

Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
(as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
Imho.)



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: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up





Oh, Eileen! What a thought.

Sandra

From: EileenB
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Coming up

We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
Not too sure about battle scenes..

I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino, Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!

Sent from my iPhone

On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:



Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
(as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
Imho.)

Loyaulte me lie,

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 SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh, Eileen! What a thought.

Sandra

From: EileenB
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: Re: Coming up

We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
Not too sure about battle scenes..

I met Paul Newman a few times when working on a film with him and I
don't remember being short!
Paul


On 10/05/2013 17:15, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino, Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
> into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
> of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
> others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
> short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
> have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
> races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
> CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
> the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
> (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
> now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
> Imho.)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> 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 SandraMachin
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
> right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
> vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
> this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
> Not too sure about battle scenes..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hilary Jones wrote:

"BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and
I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her
portraits show her with brown hair."

Actually, Williamson only said "gilt", but she enclosed it quotes, as well.
She didn't expand on why she used quotes or give a source. Sorry I can't be
more helpful.
Doug



________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up




Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e.,
platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a
heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that
took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be
surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/










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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Coming up


> Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the
> scoliosis
into account) about average for men of the time?

Accto this study - http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm - average
height for a European male in the early Middle Ages was just over 5'8". By
the 18th C it was down to just under 5'6" but a lot of that decline was due
to poor diet and the Industrial Revolution. For a well-to-do man in
Richard's time it was probably 5'8" or just under. I read soemwhere else, I
forget where, that in the 15th C average height was 2" less than now so
ideally we need soembody 5'6" for Richard.

Without the scoliosis Richard would have been average height or a little
over. And Edward was *really* tall.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up


> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
> right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
> vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
> this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc
> etc., Not too sure about battle scenes..

OT, but you make me think of something that was on the Matt Lucas Awards a
few weeks ago. For those who don't know it, this is a panel show which
gives awards for odd things like "most annoying ringtone". This one was for
"The person of the same sex you could most stand going to bed with, unless
you are a gay, in which case, the person of the opposite sex." This little
Scottish lesbian commedienne whose name I don't know picked a really tall
actor, so Lucas said "But he's 6'2" or something, and you're 4'11"" and she
replied "That's OK: I'd just climb up him, like a squirrel."

If anyone wants to actually see The Bruce's mazer, the weird lion is here:
http://www.nms.ac.uk/highlights/objects_in_focus/bute_mazer.aspx

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> Oh no! Not Matt Smith. Nothing like Richard  to me, anyway. His face isn't
refined enough and even though it's thin, somehow manages to be puddingy.

So's Richard's though, in the reconstruction. I reckon he should be thinner
in the face, but the way they've done him, he's a little puddingy.

Was it worse than Kevin Costner as Robin Hood? The rest of the cast was performing their heart out. And then Kevin opened his mouth....

I remember someone with the production whinging to the media that Alan Rickman stole the movie from Costner. Rickman's reply was a curt, "I did my job."

~Weds


Paul wrote:
> Yes I remember that wonderful Yorkshire actress Juliette Binoche as
> Cathy in Wuthering Heights. Her Parisian accent so helped bring the
> small of the Yorkshire Moors to the audience!:-)
> Paul

Oh, Claire, dare I mention the dreaded Spotted Dick? Perhaps not.

Sandra

From: Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

So's Richard's though, in the reconstruction. I reckon he should be thinner
in the face, but the way they've done him, he's a little puddingy.

Magenta gels fix everything to do with aging actors. (*cough* Liam Neeson *cough*)

Armitage has been devoted to Richard for so many years, I desperately want Armitage to play him in *something*. I also think he can play all the ranges of emotion required. Second choice is Orlando Bloom, with a *really* good director. (Ridley Scott?)

Then again, I also desperately wish Tim Rice would write the lyrics to a musical on Richard (you know it's coming). After the tangled acidity of some of his lyrics in "Chess," I think he's the only one who could do it right. (Example: "As you watch yourself caring about a minor sporting triumph, sharing your win with esoterics, paranoid hysterics who don't pay attention to what goes on around them -- they leave the ones they love the way they found them -- a normal person must dismiss you with disgust and weep for those who trusted you.")

I'd also love to see Edward IV's court presented a la "One Night in Bangkok."

~Weds

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> I am more concerned about the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however. Imho.)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne

Paul Newman (per IMDB.com) was 5' 9-1/2" (that half inches makes a difference, I guess?)

For the sake of comparison:

Orlando Bloom -- 5'10"

Richard III (without scoliosis) -- 5'8"

Richard Armitage -- 6' 2-1/2" (there's that half-inch again)

Liam Neeson -- 6'4"
Clint Eastwood -- 6'4"
(I mention these together because the director made Liam Neeson walk in a trench in whatever movie he and Eastwood were in, so The Hero would look taller, so even when you're tall in Hollywood, you can be short...and vice versa)

Tom Cruise -- 5'7"

The producers will cast who they will cast; I doubt height will matter much until it comes to setting up the actual scene shots. If Richard Armitage can be made to look like a 4'5" Dwarf...you know.

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I met Paul Newman a few times when working on a film with him and I
> don't remember being short!
> Paul
>
>
> On 10/05/2013 17:15, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino, Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
> > into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
> > of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
> > others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
> > short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
> > have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
> > races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
> > CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
> > the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
> > (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
> > now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
> > Imho.)
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > 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 SandraMachin
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
> >
> > Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Subject: Re: Coming up
> >
> > We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
> > right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
> > vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
> > this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
> > Not too sure about battle scenes..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I met him, once, when I was a teenager. I went to the set with my mother while something was being filmed in New Orleans. He and Robert Redford were together, and my mother was disappointed because she thought both would be taller...... No idea how tall he actually was. I did love those blue eyes.

On May 10, 2013, at 11:23 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



I met Paul Newman a few times when working on a film with him and I
don't remember being short!
Paul

On 10/05/2013 17:15, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino, Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
> into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
> of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
> others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
> short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
> have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
> races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
> CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
> the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
> (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
> now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
> Imho.)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com<http://40hotmail.com>>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv><mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
> right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
> vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
> this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
> Not too sure about battle scenes..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?

I just made myself ill.

~Weds

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> For a well-to-do man in Richard's time it was probably 5'8" or just under. I read soemwhere else, I forget where, that in the 15th C average height was 2" less than now so ideally we need soembody 5'6" for Richard.

Wiki says 5' 10".....not so short after all. You are correct my dear. How neat that you worked with him. I always thought he was a really classy gentleman!



On May 10, 2013, at 11:23 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



I met Paul Newman a few times when working on a film with him and I
don't remember being short!
Paul

On 10/05/2013 17:15, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino, Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
> into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
> of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
> others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
> short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
> have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
> races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
> CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
> the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
> (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
> now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
> Imho.)
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com<http://40hotmail.com>>
>
> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv><mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
> right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
> vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
> this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
> Not too sure about battle scenes..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yah, Weds, Tom Cruise could play Catesby, maybe, or some other slimeball. I would have said Clarence, but I guess he is too short for Clarence. :-)

--- Original Message ---

From: "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...>
Sent: 10 May, 2013 3:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Coming up

Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?

I just made myself ill.

~Weds

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> For a well-to-do man in Richard's time it was probably 5'8" or just under. I read soemwhere else, I forget where, that in the 15th C average height was 2" less than now so ideally we need soembody 5'6" for Richard.

I do not like that guy at all....would be offended if he even played a Tudor!

On May 10, 2013, at 1:02 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?

I just made myself ill.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> For a well-to-do man in Richard's time it was probably 5'8" or just under. I read soemwhere else, I forget where, that in the 15th C average height was 2" less than now so ideally we need soembody 5'6" for Richard.

Well the Anglo Indian Merle Oberon in the Hollywood version wasn't exactly authentic either
 
 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 12:56
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 
Yes I remember that wonderful Yorkshire actress Juliette Binoche as
Cathy in Wuthering Heights. Her Parisian accent so helped bring the
small of the Yorkshire Moors to the audience!:-)
Paul

On 09/05/2013 18:29, mailto:khafara%40aol.com wrote:
> Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e., platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be surprising.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> rote:
>
> Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
> Coming soon!
> The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
> Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
> with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
> so good.
> But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
> which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
> that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
> periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
> ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
> I am dreading it!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Individual Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Matt Smith?  Well he's okay as Dr Who but as Richard?  No way. 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 13:36
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

> World Without End? melodrama that went on forever more like. Dreadful
show, and the last person I imagine as the macho Edward III was the
actor playing him, who looked as if he wanted to be somewhere else most
of the time!

I have to agree I can't really see him as Richard either - too sort-of
pretty-pretty and yet a bit sweaty, and way too small a jaw.

Matt Smitth is a much better match for Richard facially imo - see here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4094067/Casting-Matt-Smith-shows-that-Doctor-Who-is-a-savvy-multi-million-pound-brand.html,
especially the *second* image which you have to click on the first one to
get to - and he has the right slender build and floppy brown hair, is 31 and
is an award-winning actor. But unfortunately he's *way* too tall.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up


> Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?

Better Danny Radcliffe - he's the wrong colouring and facial type, but at
least he's a very clever and likeable young man who can act up a storm.

Oh Wednesday, shame on you :-0



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 19:02
Subject: Re: Coming up

 
Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?

I just made myself ill.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> For a well-to-do man in Richard's time it was probably 5'8" or just under. I read soemwhere else, I forget where, that in the 15th C average height was 2" less than now so ideally we need soembody 5'6" for Richard.

Hi, Claire -



You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J

Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up





From: wednesday_mc
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up

> Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?

Better Danny Radcliffe - he's the wrong colouring and facial type, but at
least he's a very clever and likeable young man who can act up a storm.

What about David Tennant? I'm thinking he'd make a great Francis Lovell.


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Matt Smith?  Well he's okay as Dr Who but as Richard?  No way. 

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Agreed, Paul. Regarding the portrayal of Edward III. Not that I think the actor could do much about it because that is what the script demanded. I can’t speak of how it was done in the original book, because I haven’t read it. But I really cannot imagine Edward III being quite that uncertain of himself â€" and was he actually smallish? Most of his nobles loomed over him. That is not to say I did not like the way the drama was done, because I did. I always feel Edward III should have been a strapping six-footer who could beat seven shades of whatnot out of anyone, but I really do not know anything for sure. I have never actually studied him. I’m awaiting delivery of Mortimer’s ‘The Perfect King’, in the hope of finding out, so the show certainly interested me to that extent. I want to know more about the real Edward III. I began to get a little worried in the drama when there were ‘cuddly’ scenes between Edward and his young daughter Joan. [snip]

Carol responds:

Well, there *is* documentary evidence that he loved his daughter deeply (he calls her his "dearest daughter whom we loved most of all") and was understandably devastated when, after he'd sent her on her wedding journey with an elaborate trousseau, he learned that she had died of the plague soon after her arrival in France. As for his build, you may be right. He was certainly a warrior king, which perhaps suggests a strapping build, and his grandfather had been known as Edward Longshanks.

Carol

Yep she said gilt as I said to Carol



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:34
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and
I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her
portraits show her with brown hair."

Actually, Williamson only said "gilt", but she enclosed it quotes, as well.
She didn't expand on why she used quotes or give a source. Sorry I can't be
more helpful.
Doug

________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e.,
platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a
heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that
took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be
surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Too true. I guess some people actually like him, but I can't stand to watch him, in or out of character.

A pity Christopher Lee is so old now; I think he'd have made a perfect Morton. Does that redeem me?

As for Richard, can't we just pluck him from whatever parallel universe he's in where he didn't die, and ask him to play himself?

~Weds

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Wednesday, shame on you :-0
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 19:02
> Subject: Re: Coming up
>
>  
> Tom Cruise is 5'7". Shall we call him?
>
> I just made myself ill.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
>
> > For a well-to-do man in Richard's time it was probably 5'8" or just under. I read soemwhere else, I forget where, that in the 15th C average height was 2" less than now so ideally we need soembody 5'6" for Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>

If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed Harry to use his wand.

PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?

~Weds


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
>
> Johanne

In my head I have Benedict Cumberbatch for Clarence - tall, handsome (but Edward could be more handsome), twitchy, intelligent (yes Clarence was intelligent). I have yet to 'find' a Richard or an Edward (not Orlando, please). The nearest for Richard would be Armitage at his North and South age, just watch him when the herone walks away, but too old sadly now or Ben Wishaw (the eyes). Edward? The nearest is Rupert Penry-Jones, but I'm not sure. There must be someone out there.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 21:32
Subject: Re: Coming up

 

If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed Harry to use his wand.

PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?

~Weds

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
>
> Johanne

Thank you Carol. I am really looking forward to reading more. I have always been put off because Edward III seems to only look like Moses and I am afraid Moses does not inspire me. But I suppose Moses was younger once. Well, I have now watched the final three hours of World Without End, and I am still trying to catch my breath. Good heavens, it was riveting stuff. I loved it. Absolutely. Only gripe? The lack of a final meeting between Edward III and Caris. The drama made so much of their earlier meetings, including his promise to return to Kingsbridge. There appeared to be something between them  not quite sure what, exactly. Then yes, he does come to Kingsbridge---not benevolently---and there is every chance of them coming face to face  in fact it seemed unlikely they did not. But nope. Nothing at all. I feel cheated. There should have been something, even a glance. But then off he rides again to snub Mummy and disappear into the sunset'. Shame!!! It was a wasted moment.Why make so much of it and then drop it completely? I have no idea if it was missed in the book as well. Still, I WILL watch it again. Too good not to. So, I still do not know why the series has been dissed.

Sandra


From: justcarol67
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Coming up

Well, there *is* documentary evidence that he loved his daughter deeply (he calls her his "dearest daughter whom we loved most of all") and was understandably devastated when, after he'd sent her on her wedding journey with an elaborate trousseau, he learned that she had died of the plague soon after her arrival in France. As for his build, you may be right. He was certainly a warrior king, which perhaps suggests a strapping build, and his grandfather had been known as Edward Longshanks.

Tennant can be anyone he wants to - unless Armitage wants the role,he gets first dibs as far as I'm concerned.
 
(OT - I'm going to see Tennant play Richard II in December.)


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 21:24
Subject: Re: Coming up

 
What about David Tennant? I'm thinking he'd make a great Francis Lovell.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Matt Smith?  Well he's okay as Dr Who but as Richard?  No way. 

Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's': strong, sensitive and smart.

Margie

Sent from my iPad

On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed Harry to use his wand.
>
> PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> >
> > Johanne
>
>

(Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and number of meaty roles)

Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools and skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very well do.


Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's': strong,
sensitive and smart.

Margie

Sent from my iPad

On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not
hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in
any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed
Harry to use his wand.
>
> PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> >
> > Johanne
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

And since he's around 5'6" or so, he's close to Richard's height, too.


Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: khafara <khafara@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 7:47 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


(Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and
number of meaty roles)

Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools and
skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very well
do.


Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's': strong,

sensitive and smart.

Margie

Sent from my iPad

On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not
hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in
any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed
Harry to use his wand.
>
> PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> >
> > Johanne
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Just give yourself one hour and I promise you might just end up a Martin Freeman fan. If you have access to Netflix, watch the first episode of the BBC series 'Sherlock', (A Study in Pink is the name of the episode) staring Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch. Freeman is brilliant at playing the soldier, a killer when necessary, yet still a friend, and a smart puzzle solver.

Sent from my iPad

On May 10, 2013, at 6:11 PM, khafara@... wrote:

> And since he's around 5'6" or so, he's close to Richard's height, too.
>
>
> Tamara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: khafara <khafara@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 7:47 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and
> number of meaty roles)
>
> Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools and
> skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very well
> do.
>
> Tamara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
> comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
> old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's': strong,
>
> sensitive and smart.
>
> Margie
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not
> hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in
> any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed
> Harry to use his wand.
> >
> > PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> >
> > > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:47 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up



> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career
> and number of meaty roles)

> Hmm. He does look about right,

Not bad - and he's the right height.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up


> PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you
> think?

Blessed would make quite a good Brampton I think. He's way too old - but he
doesn't actually look it.

How about Armitage as Richard in an alternate universe where he was allowed to live to a great age?






-----Original Message-----
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up


Magenta gels fix everything to do with aging actors. (*cough* Liam Neeson
*cough*)

Armitage has been devoted to Richard for so many years, I desperately want
Armitage to play him in *something*. I also think he can play all the ranges of
emotion required. Second choice is Orlando Bloom, with a *really* good director.
(Ridley Scott?)

Then again, I also desperately wish Tim Rice would write the lyrics to a musical
on Richard (you know it's coming). After the tangled acidity of some of his
lyrics in "Chess," I think he's the only one who could do it right. (Example:
"As you watch yourself caring about a minor sporting triumph, sharing your win
with esoterics, paranoid hysterics who don't pay attention to what goes on
around them -- they leave the ones they love the way they found them -- a normal
person must dismiss you with disgust and weep for those who trusted you.")

I'd also love to see Edward IV's court presented a la "One Night in Bangkok."

~Weds

--- In , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> I am more concerned about the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about
Richard Armitage for Rick (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit
long in the tooth now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York,
however. Imho.)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ian Mortimer's 'The Perfect King' is brilliant on Edward.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 22:16
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

Thank you Carol. I am really looking forward to reading more. I have always been put off because Edward III seems to only look like Moses and I am afraid Moses does not inspire me. But I suppose Moses was younger once. Well, I have now watched the final three hours of World Without End, and I am still trying to catch my breath. Good heavens, it was riveting stuff. I loved it. Absolutely. Only gripe? The lack of a final meeting between Edward III and Caris. The drama made so much of their earlier meetings, including his promise to return to Kingsbridge. There appeared to be something between them  not quite sure what, exactly. Then yes, he does come to Kingsbridge---not benevolently---and there is every chance of them coming face to face  in fact it seemed unlikely they did not. But nope. Nothing at all. I feel cheated. There should have been something, even a glance. But then off he rides again to snub Mummy and disappear into the sunset'.
Shame!!! It was a wasted moment.Why make so much of it and then drop it completely? I have no idea if it was missed in the book as well. Still, I WILL watch it again. Too good not to. So, I still do not know why the series has been dissed.

Sandra

From: justcarol67
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:24 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Coming up

Well, there *is* documentary evidence that he loved his daughter deeply (he calls her his "dearest daughter whom we loved most of all") and was understandably devastated when, after he'd sent her on her wedding journey with an elaborate trousseau, he learned that she had died of the plague soon after her arrival in France. As for his build, you may be right. He was certainly a warrior king, which perhaps suggests a strapping build, and his grandfather had been known as Edward Longshanks.

Please not Martin Freeman; not at all the sensitive type (I should ever be thinking of The Office). But like you Liz, Tennant yes, or RA made to look younger. It has been done.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 22:33
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

Tennant can be anyone he wants to - unless Armitage wants the role,he gets first dibs as far as I'm concerned.
 
(OT - I'm going to see Tennant play Richard II in December.)

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, 10 May 2013, 21:24
Subject: Re: Coming up

 
What about David Tennant? I'm thinking he'd make a great Francis Lovell.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Matt Smith?  Well he's okay as Dr Who but as Richard?  No way. 

Thank you, Hilary. The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
Ian Mortimer's 'The Perfect King' is brilliant on Edward.

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata! 



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

Thank you, Hilary. The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 8:31 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
Ian Mortimer's 'The Perfect King' is brilliant on Edward.

I'd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Thank you, Hilary. The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

I suppose it's because they never really told you why you were doing it. You know, adding up so you can go to the shops is one thing. But algebra, trignometry, geometry, no-one ever told me at twelve what it was used for - other than torture.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


 

I'd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Thank you, Hilary. The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

You should have seen my face when I was handed a book of logarithms. A deer caught in headlights.

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


I suppose it's because they never really told you why you were doing it. You know, adding up so you can go to the shops is one thing. But algebra, trignometry, geometry, no-one ever told me at twelve what it was used for - other than torture.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


I'd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Thank you, Hilary. The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

Lovely man, lovely wife, both charming and approachable, and totally
professional at work.
An honour.
Paul

On 10/05/2013 19:04, Pamela Bain wrote:
> Wiki says 5' 10".....not so short after all. You are correct my dear. How neat that you worked with him. I always thought he was a really classy gentleman!
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 11:23 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I met Paul Newman a few times when working on a film with him and I
> don't remember being short!
> Paul
>
> On 10/05/2013 17:15, Pamela Bain wrote:
>> I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino, Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
>> into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
>> of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
>> others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
>> short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
>> have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
>> races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
>> CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
>> the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
>> (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
>> now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
>> Imho.)
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>
>> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com<http://40hotmail.com>>
>>
>> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv><mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>>
>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>
>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>>
>> Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>> From: EileenB
>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Subject: Re: Coming up
>>
>> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
>> right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
>> vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
>> this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
>> Not too sure about battle scenes..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I agree....I hated math. I think, in my day, no one explained *why* we needed math. When I married a civil engineer and surveyor, I suddenly found out.......

On May 11, 2013, at 3:52 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I suppose it's because they never really told you why you were doing it. You know, adding up so you can go to the shops is one thing. But algebra, trignometry, geometry, no-one ever told me at twelve what it was used for - other than torture.

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up




Iýd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk<http://40live.co.uk>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Thank you, Hilary. ýThe Perfect Kingý should arrive today, and I canýt wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. Iýd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something ýnewý in which to become interested. Iým determined to ýdoý Richard II again too. Oh, letýs face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at ýOý level in favour of Geography. I canýt believe it now.

Sandra

Join the club! I did once get -4 in an Algebra exam. Didn't even get credit for spelling my name correctly.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I’d have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
> Thank you, Hilary. ‘The Perfect King’ should arrive today, and I can’t wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I’d forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something ‘new’ in which to become interested. I’m determined to ‘do’ Richard II again too. Oh, let’s face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at ‘O’ level in favour of Geography. I can’t believe it now.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Yep she said gilt as I said to Carol"

Doug here:
We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown
w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced
"gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some
person from that period?
If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the
period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would
it? Rubens, maybe?
Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs
began...

Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:34
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up




Hilary Jones wrote:

"BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and
I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her
portraits show her with brown hair."

Actually, Williamson only said "gilt", but she enclosed it quotes, as well.
She didn't expand on why she used quotes or give a source. Sorry I can't be
more helpful.
Doug

________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e.,
platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a
heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that
took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be
surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

wednesday_mc wrote:

//snip//
"A pity Christopher Lee is so old now; I think he'd have made a perfect
Morton. Does that redeem me? "

Doug here:
I've only seen Chistopher Lee portraying villians, which he does very, very,
well, and somehow I've always pictured Morton as someone whose villiany
wasn't apparent - it makes inserting that knife in your back sooo much
easier, you know?
So we'd need an actor to "play against type"; ie, an actor *not* known for
playing villians, possibly even known for being the hero or, at least, a
"good guy". Or even a really good comic actor? I've read to do comedy
properly requires a very high level of acting skills, so the person known
for comedy, as opposed to a "comic", should have the requisite acting
skills, just not the reputation. Offhand, Ricky Gervais, is the only name I
can come up with, but maybe you see what I mean?
I just don't watch enough television or movies to be up on who's who
anymore...


"As for Richard, can't we just pluck him from whatever parallel universe
he's in where he didn't die, and ask him to play himself?"

Well now, what fun would *that* be?
Of course, he'd had plenty of practice working in front of people, so we'd
likely not have to worry about stage-fright!
So there's that...

Doug

Anne of Cleaves was portrayed as blonde, if I remember correctly.

On May 11, 2013, at 9:28 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:



Hilary Jones wrote:

"Yep she said gilt as I said to Carol"

Doug here:
We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown
w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced
"gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some
person from that period?
If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the
period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would
it? Rubens, maybe?
Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs
began...

Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:34
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Hilary Jones wrote:

"BTW the only author I can find who refers to the 'silver gilt hair' and
I've been back as far as Halsted, is Audrey Williamson. Even JAH says her
portraits show her with brown hair."

Actually, Williamson only said "gilt", but she enclosed it quotes, as well.
She didn't expand on why she used quotes or give a source. Sorry I can't be
more helpful.
Doug

________________________________
From: "khafara@...<mailto:khafara%40aol.com>" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara%40aol.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013, 18:29
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh, I can easily see it, especially if the actress has "silver-gilt" (i.e.,
platinum blonde) hair as allegedly did EW. I've often wondered if EW had a
heavy Nordic component to her ancestry -- which considering the Normans that
took over England were in essence barely-Frenchified Vikings, wouldn't be
surprising.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 12:06 pm
Subject: Re: Coming up

Paul...I join you in your dread...groan...:0/ eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...>
rote:

Very disturbing news in one of the tv magazines.
Coming soon!
The White Queen. recounts the battle ofr the English throne during the
Wars of the Roses through the eyes of thw women whose fates were tied up
with the changing fortunes of the Houses of Lancaster and York. So far
so good.
But then I learn that Elizabeth Woodville is played by a Swedish actress
which straight away beggars the question...how can they go on the say
that "the sumptuous drama brings to life one of the most dramatic
periods in British history far more accurately than the ever-so slightly
ridiculous The Tudors". Swedish queen and a Welsh Richard? What else?
I am dreading it!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

-----------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Individual Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

According to Merriam Webster Unabridged, blonde' is 15th century. And that's the adjective, meaning :of a flaxen, golden, light auburn or pale yellowish-brown color. If that's right, then here should be some references somewhere, Couldn't guess where.

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
Doug here:
We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown
w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced
"gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some
person from that period?
If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the
period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would
it? Rubens, maybe?
Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs
began...

Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Paul Newman was my mother's favorite actor and heartthrob. She used to teasingly say (and with some justification -- she was very good-looking in her youth) she could have stolen him away from Joanne Woodward, but she had far too much respect for Joanne Woodward to do that to her.






-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 6:00 am
Subject: Re: Off Topic


Lovely man, lovely wife, both charming and approachable, and totally
professional at work.
An honour.
Paul

On 10/05/2013 19:04, Pamela Bain wrote:
> Wiki says 5' 10".....not so short after all. You are correct my dear. How neat
that you worked with him. I always thought he was a really classy gentleman!
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 11:23 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>>
wrote:
>
>
>
> I met Paul Newman a few times when working on a film with him and I
> don't remember being short!
> Paul
>
> On 10/05/2013 17:15, Pamela Bain wrote:
>> I was thinking the same thing. A lot of US actors, Tom Cruise, Al Pacino,
Paul Newman all are/were short. Somehow they make them look tall!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On May 10, 2013, at 11:12 AM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Wasn't 5'4" (which was probably about Richard's height, taking the scoliosis
>> into account) about average for men of the time? It has been noted that many
>> of our favourite actors are really short, like Dustin Hoffman and many
>> others. It may actually be harder to find a 6'4" actor to play Edward than a
>> short actor to play Richard! But regardless, Peter Jackson didn't seem to
>> have too much trouble creating the appearance of the varying heights of the
>> races of Middle-earth, using old, traditional movie fakery in addition to
>> CGI. J So I don't think that will be a problem. I am more concerned about
>> the age thing, as I would be enthusiastic about Richard Armitage for Rick
>> (as Maire calls him J), except that I think he's a bit long in the tooth
>> now. (He would be great as Richard's father, the Duke of York, however.
>> Imho.)
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie,
>>
>> Johanne
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Johanne L. Tournier
>>
>> Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com><mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com<http://40hotmail.com>>
>>
>> or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv><mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>>
>> "With God, all things are possible."
>>
>> - Jesus of Nazareth
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>]
On Behalf Of SandraMachin
>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:01 PM
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>>
>> Oh, Eileen! What a thought.
>>
>> Sandra
>>
>> From: EileenB
>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:47 PM
>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Subject: Re: Coming up
>>
>> We may have to put up with an actor being too tall...if he looks/sounds
>> right other than that...The other actors can always stand on boxes...and
>> vice versa...if actor too short the others can stand in holes...of course
>> this is ok for closeup...or say when their riding horses or in bed etc etc.,
>> Not too sure about battle scenes..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

SandraMachin wrote:

"According to Merriam Webster Unabridged, blonde' is 15th century. And that's
the adjective, meaning :of a flaxen, golden, light auburn or pale
yellowish-brown color. If that's right, then here should be some references
somewhere, Couldn't guess where."

Thanks, Sandra. Darn, that definition *does* cover about every possible
shade, doesn't it?
Pamela noted that Anne of Cleves portrait has her as a blonde and which
would be in the 1530s (I think?). A bit past our period, but that gives a
frame for searching to see "blonde" was ever used to describe Anne's hair.
Why do I have this feeling all that will be found is "golden" (she *was* a
princess after all!)?
Thanks again,
Doug
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
Doug here:
We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown
w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced
"gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some
person from that period?
If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the
period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would
it? Rubens, maybe?
Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs
began...

Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Tamara wrote:
>
> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and number of meaty roles)
>
> Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools and skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very well do.

Carol responds:

What? Bilbo? With that nose? Noooooo!!!!! Richard would never live it down. He'd be forever associated with singing dwarves and forgotten pocket handkerchiefs. (I think Martin Freeman is perfect for Bilbo in part because he looks so ordinary. Hobbits were known for pleasant, cheery faces, not serious, handsome ones.) And he's already ten years too old for Richard at Bosworth, much less Richard in his younger years.

Check out his IMDb photo: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1317711872/nm0293509

Side note: I hate movies and TV shows where an actor is made up too look like his character's younger self or to play the role of a much younger person. Much better to have two or more somewhat similar looking actors if it's a TV series. If it's a movie, limit the time scale to five years at most. Just my opinion.

But, sheesh! We might as well cast Rupert Grint as Richard and get it over with!

Carol

Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
years!
The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
I miss it terribly!
Paul
p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
suffering from post The Tudors thinking......

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

He looks older than Richard Armitage.


--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and number of meaty roles)
>
> Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools and skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very well do.
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
> comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
> old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's': strong,
> sensitive and smart.
>
> Margie
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not
> hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in
> any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed
> Harry to use his wand.
> >
> > PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.

Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't Costner's performance that made that movie a success.

Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major film production.

As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.

~Weds


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> years!
> The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> I miss it terribly!
> Paul
> p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol

The most infamous royal art commission in British history is Hans Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves<http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/8/8/12388-portrait-of-anne-of-cleves-hans-the-younger-holbein.jpg>. In 1539 king Henry VIII, in his late 40s and already married three times, was considering a proposal to this lucky, lucky princess. The marriage had political attractions, but Henry had to know the princess was beautiful. Verbal reports were glowing ý but Henry needed something more, so he sent Holbein, the King's Painter, on a mission to paint Anne from life.

The story goes like this: Holbein painted a beautiful picture of Anne of Cleves, and his art made her seem beautiful in herself. Evenly balanced, almost heraldically flat, laden with jewelled colour, the picture gave her features a harmony that Henry fell in love with. The marriage was made, the princess came to England ý and the fat, sick, ageing king<http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/holbein/holbein_henry_viii.jpg> rejected his bride as not good-looking enough for him.

This is the anecdote that has come down through the ages, retold by biographers and art historians alike. But what about the notorious portrait itself? To see it you have to go to the Louvre<http://www.louvre.fr/llv/commun/home.jsp?bmLocale=en>, where it hangs not among British, but German paintings, near a Venus by Lucas Cranach<http://www.passionforpaintings.com/art-gallery/lucas-cranach-painter/the-elder-venus-standing-in-a-landscape-1529-xx-musee-du-louvre-paris-oil-painting-reproduction>, court painter of Saxony, who dodged the Anne of Cleves commission due to illness.

Holbein's German princess is portrayed in subtle, regal colours: rich red velvet, honey gold, a green background. Yet you cannot really say he flatters Anne of Cleves ý rather, by stressing her clothes and jewels, he makes it explicit that he is showing someone at their best. Her face is nice but her eyes are dull ý this is not Holbein responding to Renaissance ideas of beauty but Holbein doing his best to balance honesty and decorum. To see this, you just have to compare Anne of Cleves with his portrait ý also commissioned by Henry for the same purpose ý of another potential bride, Christina of Denmark<http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/hans-holbein-the-younger-christina-of-denmark-duchess-of-milan>. This painting<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/painting> of the one who got away and avoided marriage with Henry VIII is much more beguiling. It is in the National Gallery<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/national-gallery>. Christina looks out of mourning robes with a Mona Lisa smile.

Obviously, to compare potential Tudor brides in this way is to speak an archaic and pernicious language of beauty. But this was the Renaissance: it invented the myth of beauty. The fascinating thing about Henry VIII and his bridal portraits is that classical ideals, revived in Renaissance Italy and taken to new heights in the art of Leonardo<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-lost-battles-by-jonathan-jones-2268855.html> and Raphael<http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.JPG>, become a political issue. International diplomacy mingles with the visual language of the most modern art of the day. At moments like this we see how much higher the status of artists was in the Renaissance than it is today ý no royal has ever asked Lucian Freud for this kind of help.

The historian David Starkey<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Wives-Queens-Henry-VIII/dp/0099437244> argues there is no real evidence that Holbein's portrait influenced Henry's decision to marry Anne of Cleves. There is no record of his reaction to it (unlike Holbein's Christina of Denmark, which delighted him so much he had musicians play all day, so he could feast on the food of love). Instead, claims Starkey, it was the verbal testimony of influential courtiers that won him over to marry Anne of Cleves rather than Christina.

This would at least help answer the obvious question the traditional tale leaves hanging in the air ý how did Holbein get away with it? If his painting seduced the king only for the old monster to be disillusioned, why was Holbein not savagely punished?

When you contemplate the painting, it is hard to believe that Holbein's eye counted for nothing. Without portraying Anne of Cleves as a Renaissance beauty he does picture her as a true princess, modest, stylish, quietly capable. He does not make her look like a Raphael. But he does make her look like a Holbein. And at least this unfortunate royal has that historical victory.

On May 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only difference. Maire.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

To throw in the proverbial monkey wrench, "blonde" does date back to the 15thC. (Merriam-Webster), but I beg of thee, don't make make me haul out my magnifier to cite the first instance in the OED.

Also, "gilt"in re: Sumptuary Laws can refer to a coating or plating of gold on metal, suggesting a superficial effect. Maybe she had dark roots? :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up



 
Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol

So far as both films go, they're great entertainment. My kids are all grown and known all the in-authenticities of Costner's Robin Hood but they also love it, including Costner's performance. The same with Waterworld - greatly entertaining film - I'd watch that over dozens of under-budget films anyday. The same with The Postman.

Col

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Or as my hair dresser says "blended"!

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:39 PM, "Judy Thomson" <judygerard.thomson@...<mailto:judygerard.thomson@...>> wrote:



To throw in the proverbial monkey wrench, "blonde" does date back to the 15thC. (Merriam-Webster), but I beg of thee, don't make make me haul out my magnifier to cite the first instance in the OED.

Also, "gilt"in re: Sumptuary Laws can refer to a coating or plating of gold on metal, suggesting a superficial effect. Maybe she had dark roots? :-)

Judy

Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up



Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol

But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only difference. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Rickman had just done the first Die Hard film - where he got the best one-liners and had far more on-screen chemistry with Bonnie Bedelia than did Bruce Willis (who was supposed to be her ex-husband) - so he wasn't chopped liver himself.



-----Original Message-----
From: pbain@...
To: <> <>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC



But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>>
wrote:

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
difference. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
*promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I thought he was in the first one as well.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of khafara@...
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC



Rickman had just done the first Die Hard film - where he got the best one-liners and had far more on-screen chemistry with Bonnie Bedelia than did Bruce Willis (who was supposed to be her ex-husband) - so he wasn't chopped liver himself.

-----Original Message-----
From: pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>> <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com><mailto:mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>>
wrote:

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
difference. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
*promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.

Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: pbain@...
To: <> <>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC



But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>>
wrote:

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
difference. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
*promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh Sandra!  I once got 11% in a Maths exam (and wasn't the worst).  It's nice to know I'm not the only one.
 
 


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 
I'd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Thank you, Hilary. The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

I too like Alan Rickman. Does anyone remember him in 1982 as Mr. Slope in The Barchester Chronicles? Wonderful.

Sandra


From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:24 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC


I thought he was in the first one as well.

________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mailto:khafara%40aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:22 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

Rickman had just done the first Die Hard film - where he got the best one-liners and had far more on-screen chemistry with Bonnie Bedelia than did Bruce Willis (who was supposed to be her ex-husband) - so he wasn't chopped liver himself.

I certainly hope so, and he is far more charming, probably a hell of a lot smarter, and just oozes the je ne c'est qua, that make me adore him. Sorry hubby, it is what it is! Costner, yucky Cruise, and smarmy George Clooney, nope not for me. Another of my faves is Bill Nighy. He is marvelous, and does everything from kookie comedy to treachery. Some of the time I really like Kenneth Branagh, but not always. He is great in the Wallander Series.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of khafara@...
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:26 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC



Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>> <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com><mailto:mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>>
wrote:

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
difference. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
*promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I took what was charmingly called "Idiot's Math" in college, as you had to have one math class in order to graduate. My lovely professor told me it was a good thing that I was an English Major.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up



Oh Sandra! I once got 11% in a Maths exam (and wasn't the worst). It's nice to know I'm not the only one.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...<mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


I'd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The 4% was probably for getting my name right. I did quite well in all my other subjects, but Maths? Forget it.

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:18 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

This forum will know I'm a great fan of his (despite him not agreeing one hundred per cent on our view of Richard). It's so easily to see the late 15th century in isolation, when in fact the earlier part and the 14th also contain some fascinating characters. Me, I wouldn't dare to have done Geography - all those rocks and strata!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 8:54
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Thank you, Hilary. 'The Perfect King' should arrive today, and I can't wait to get into it. It seems we rarely sample Edward III in anything, so it was a refreshing change. I'd forgotten so much about that period, and am particularly pleased to have something 'new' in which to become interested. I'm determined to 'do' Richard II again too. Oh, let's face it, I love the Plantagenets. And to think I dropped History at 'O' level in favour of Geography. I can't believe it now.

Sandra

Ah, a kindred spirit. But at 11% you were on a roll!

From: liz williams
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh Sandra! I once got 11% in a Maths exam (and wasn't the worst). It's nice to know I'm not the only one.

I was really surprised when I found out his age, I thought he was much older too.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 17:46
Subject: Re: Coming up

 
He looks older than Richard Armitage.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, khafara@... wrote:
>
> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and number of meaty roles)
>
> Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools and skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very well do.
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
> comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
> old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's': strong,
> sensitive and smart.
>
> Margie
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not
> hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point, in
> any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever allowed
> Harry to use his wand.
> >
> > PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you think?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What I want to know is, what was the portrait of Henry like that made Anne agree to marry him?  She must have had a shock when she was what he really looked it. 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 18:23
Subject: Anne of Cleve's story from......guess who!


The most infamous royal art commission in British history is Hans Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves<http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/8/8/12388-portrait-of-anne-of-cleves-hans-the-younger-holbein.jpg>. In 1539 king Henry VIII, in his late 40s and already married three times, was considering a proposal to this lucky, lucky princess. The marriage had political attractions, but Henry had to know the princess was beautiful. Verbal reports were glowing  but Henry needed something more, so he sent Holbein, the King's Painter, on a mission to paint Anne from life.

The story goes like this: Holbein painted a beautiful picture of Anne of Cleves, and his art made her seem beautiful in herself. Evenly balanced, almost heraldically flat, laden with jewelled colour, the picture gave her features a harmony that Henry fell in love with. The marriage was made, the princess came to England  and the fat, sick, ageing king<http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/holbein/holbein_henry_viii.jpg> rejected his bride as not good-looking enough for him.

This is the anecdote that has come down through the ages, retold by biographers and art historians alike. But what about the notorious portrait itself? To see it you have to go to the Louvre<http://www.louvre.fr/llv/commun/home.jsp?bmLocale=en>, where it hangs not among British, but German paintings, near a Venus by Lucas Cranach<http://www.passionforpaintings.com/art-gallery/lucas-cranach-painter/the-elder-venus-standing-in-a-landscape-1529-xx-musee-du-louvre-paris-oil-painting-reproduction>, court painter of Saxony, who dodged the Anne of Cleves commission due to illness.

Holbein's German princess is portrayed in subtle, regal colours: rich red velvet, honey gold, a green background. Yet you cannot really say he flatters Anne of Cleves  rather, by stressing her clothes and jewels, he makes it explicit that he is showing someone at their best. Her face is nice but her eyes are dull  this is not Holbein responding to Renaissance ideas of beauty but Holbein doing his best to balance honesty and decorum. To see this, you just have to compare Anne of Cleves with his portrait  also commissioned by Henry for the same purpose  of another potential bride, Christina of Denmark<http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/hans-holbein-the-younger-christina-of-denmark-duchess-of-milan>. This painting<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/painting> of the one who got away and avoided marriage with Henry VIII is much more beguiling. It is in the National Gallery<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/national-gallery>.
Christina looks out of mourning robes with a Mona Lisa smile.

Obviously, to compare potential Tudor brides in this way is to speak an archaic and pernicious language of beauty. But this was the Renaissance: it invented the myth of beauty. The fascinating thing about Henry VIII and his bridal portraits is that classical ideals, revived in Renaissance Italy and taken to new heights in the art of Leonardo<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-lost-battles-by-jonathan-jones-2268855.html> and Raphael<http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.JPG>, become a political issue. International diplomacy mingles with the visual language of the most modern art of the day. At moments like this we see how much higher the status of artists was in the Renaissance than it is today  no royal has ever asked Lucian Freud for this kind of help.

The historian David Starkey<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Wives-Queens-Henry-VIII/dp/0099437244> argues there is no real evidence that Holbein's portrait influenced Henry's decision to marry Anne of Cleves. There is no record of his reaction to it (unlike Holbein's Christina of Denmark, which delighted him so much he had musicians play all day, so he could feast on the food of love). Instead, claims Starkey, it was the verbal testimony of influential courtiers that won him over to marry Anne of Cleves rather than Christina.

This would at least help answer the obvious question the traditional tale leaves hanging in the air  how did Holbein get away with it? If his painting seduced the king only for the old monster to be disillusioned, why was Holbein not savagely punished?

When you contemplate the painting, it is hard to believe that Holbein's eye counted for nothing. Without portraying Anne of Cleves as a Renaissance beauty he does picture her as a true princess, modest, stylish, quietly capable. He does not make her look like a Raphael. But he does make her look like a Holbein. And at least this unfortunate royal has that historical victory.

On May 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore.  He made some terrific films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after Waterworld.  



________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:26
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

 
Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>
wrote:

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
difference. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
*promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

 I think the teachers would have disagreed with that!



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:35
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 
Ah, a kindred spirit. But at 11% you were on a roll!

From: liz williams
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:30 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Oh Sandra! I once got 11% in a Maths exam (and wasn't the worst). It's nice to know I'm not the only one.

 I love Clooney (nice voice, self deprecating, knows fame doesn't last) but Cruise - now he is smarmy (and weird). 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:32
Subject: RE: OFF TOPIC ACTORS

 
I certainly hope so, and he is far more charming, probably a hell of a lot smarter, and just oozes the je ne c'est qua, that make me adore him. Sorry hubby, it is what it is! Costner, yucky Cruise, and smarmy George Clooney, nope not for me. Another of my faves is Bill Nighy. He is marvelous, and does everything from kookie comedy to treachery. Some of the time I really like Kenneth Branagh, but not always. He is great in the Wallander Series.

________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mailto:khafara%40aol.com
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:26 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

But I love Alan Rickman.....

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com><mailto:mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>>
wrote:

Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
difference. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
"wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
*promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>
> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>
> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
film production.
>
> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > years!
> > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > I miss it terribly!
> > Paul
> > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> How about Armitage as Richard in an alternate universe where he was
> allowed to live to a great age?

Given that Armitage is a similar type to the York boys but too old (and too
tall for Richard), how about Armitage as their cousin the Kingmaker?

From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> I'd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would
> have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand
> total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it
> would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I
> could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort
> of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The
> 4% was probably for getting my name right.

Nah - you only get 2% for that. I was tolerable at Maths but hopeless at
learning foreign languages, and managed to get 2% in Modern Greek.

But if youse are all in the same age-range as me - I'm 54 - opting for
History wouldn't have brought you any Plantagenets. O-Level History in
those days meant Russia and Germany in the 19th and 20th C.

Hardly surprising that "her eyes look dull" at the prospect at marrying H8!  However, in the end she made the best of it and was certainly the lucky one among the six.




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 12 May 2013 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Anne of Cleve's story from......guess who!



 
What I want to know is, what was the portrait of Henry like that made Anne agree to marry him?  She must have had a shock when she was what he really looked it. 

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 18:23
Subject: Anne of Cleve's story from......guess who!

The most infamous royal art commission in British history is Hans Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves<http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/8/8/12388-portrait-of-anne-of-cleves-hans-the-younger-holbein.jpg>. In 1539 king Henry VIII, in his late 40s and already married three times, was considering a proposal to this lucky, lucky princess. The marriage had political attractions, but Henry had to know the princess was beautiful. Verbal reports were glowing  but Henry needed something more, so he sent Holbein, the King's Painter, on a mission to paint Anne from life.

The story goes like this: Holbein painted a beautiful picture of Anne of Cleves, and his art made her seem beautiful in herself. Evenly balanced, almost heraldically flat, laden with jewelled colour, the picture gave her features a harmony that Henry fell in love with. The marriage was made, the princess came to England  and the fat, sick, ageing king<http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/holbein/holbein_henry_viii.jpg> rejected his bride as not good-looking enough for him.

This is the anecdote that has come down through the ages, retold by biographers and art historians alike. But what about the notorious portrait itself? To see it you have to go to the Louvre<http://www.louvre.fr/llv/commun/home.jsp?bmLocale=en>, where it hangs not among British, but German paintings, near a Venus by Lucas Cranach<http://www.passionforpaintings.com/art-gallery/lucas-cranach-painter/the-elder-venus-standing-in-a-landscape-1529-xx-musee-du-louvre-paris-oil-painting-reproduction>, court painter of Saxony, who dodged the Anne of Cleves commission due to illness.

Holbein's German princess is portrayed in subtle, regal colours: rich red velvet, honey gold, a green background. Yet you cannot really say he flatters Anne of Cleves  rather, by stressing her clothes and jewels, he makes it explicit that he is showing someone at their best. Her face is nice but her eyes are dull  this is not Holbein responding to Renaissance ideas of beauty but Holbein doing his best to balance honesty and decorum. To see this, you just have to compare Anne of Cleves with his portrait  also commissioned by Henry for the same purpose  of another potential bride, Christina of Denmark<http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/hans-holbein-the-younger-christina-of-denmark-duchess-of-milan>. This painting<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/painting> of the one who got away and avoided marriage with Henry VIII is much more beguiling. It is in the National Gallery<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/national-gallery>.
Christina looks out of mourning robes with a Mona Lisa smile.

Obviously, to compare potential Tudor brides in this way is to speak an archaic and pernicious language of beauty. But this was the Renaissance: it invented the myth of beauty. The fascinating thing about Henry VIII and his bridal portraits is that classical ideals, revived in Renaissance Italy and taken to new heights in the art of Leonardo<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-lost-battles-by-jonathan-jones-2268855.html> and Raphael<http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.JPG>, become a political issue. International diplomacy mingles with the visual language of the most modern art of the day. At moments like this we see how much higher the status of artists was in the Renaissance than it is today  no royal has ever asked Lucian Freud for this kind of help.

The historian David Starkey<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Wives-Queens-Henry-VIII/dp/0099437244> argues there is no real evidence that Holbein's portrait influenced Henry's decision to marry Anne of Cleves. There is no record of his reaction to it (unlike Holbein's Christina of Denmark, which delighted him so much he had musicians play all day, so he could feast on the food of love). Instead, claims Starkey, it was the verbal testimony of influential courtiers that won him over to marry Anne of Cleves rather than Christina.

This would at least help answer the obvious question the traditional tale leaves hanging in the air  how did Holbein get away with it? If his painting seduced the king only for the old monster to be disillusioned, why was Holbein not savagely punished?

When you contemplate the painting, it is hard to believe that Holbein's eye counted for nothing. Without portraying Anne of Cleves as a Renaissance beauty he does picture her as a true princess, modest, stylish, quietly capable. He does not make her look like a Raphael. But he does make her look like a Holbein. And at least this unfortunate royal has that historical victory.

On May 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:

Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sounds good to me!




Tamara



-----Original Message-----
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


From: khafara@...
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> How about Armitage as Richard in an alternate universe where he was
> allowed to live to a great age?

Given that Armitage is a similar type to the York boys but too old (and too
tall for Richard), how about Armitage as their cousin the Kingmaker?



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

That's his grey-blonde hair. Give it an auburn cast and then compare him to the NPG portrait or the morph. His face shape is right, and he's the right height at 5'6" or so.

His wrinkles are easily dealt with -- that's why God gave us pancake makeup -- and he hasn't gone jowly yet, his skin's still firm enough to conform to his neck and face (which also means he's been able to keep his weight steady through his adult life).

Tamara





-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


I was really surprised when I found out his age, I thought he was much older
too.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 17:46
Subject: Re: Coming up


He looks older than Richard Armitage.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, khafara@... wrote:
>
> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and
number of meaty roles)
>
> Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools
and skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very
well do.
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
> comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
> old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's':
strong,
> sensitive and smart.
>
> Margie
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not

> hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point,
in
> any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever
allowed
> Harry to use his wand.
> >
> > PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you
think?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well, I'm more than happy with Waterworld and Tin Cup and The Postman :) And the critics (as well as me) loved Thirteen Days and Open Range (one of the best westerns in the last few decades). He hasn't had a bit film hit in a while but Hatfields & McCoys got good reviews. He's not the best actor in the world but he has a great stack of films to his credit overall.

Col

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore.  He made some terrific films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after Waterworld.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
>  
> Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.
>
> Tamara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
> Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
> But I love Alan Rickman.....
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
> doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
> difference. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
> English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
> *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
> post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
> by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
> >
> > Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
> have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
> fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
> Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
> >
> > Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
> film production.
> >
> > As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
> so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > > years!
> > > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > > I miss it terribly!
> > > Paul
> > > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> The most infamous royal art commission in British history is Hans Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves<http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/8/8/12388-portrait-of-anne-of-cleves-hans-the-younger-holbein.jpg>. [snip]

Carol responds:

Hi, Pam. This is an art blog from the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/27/holbein-engineer-royal-wedding , right? You might want to put it in quotes with the URL next time just to be safe. (I didn't guess who wrote the article. I had to to look it up to find out.) Interesting stuff, but the blogger could have done a better job with the URLs.

Carol

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> To throw in the proverbial monkey wrench, "blonde" does date back to the 15thC. (Merriam-Webster), but I beg of thee, don't make make me haul out my magnifier to cite the first instance in the OED.
>
> Also, "gilt"in re: Sumptuary Laws can refer to a coating or plating of gold on metal, suggesting a superficial effect. Maybe she had dark roots? :-)
>
> Judy

Carol responds:

I cheated a bit and Googled "first use of blonde in English," which led me to Wikipedia, which I wouldn't trust except that it cited the OED, which gives the first use of "blonde" in English as 1481, a bit late to describe EW as E4's "bride" in 1461 but possibly applicable to her in the late years of her marriage. (After her widowhood, she would probably have covered up her hair.) I don't think, though, that the word was ever applied to her whether or not it was applicable.

However, as far as I can determine, "gilt" as a hair color does not have the connotation of gold plating or edging (and therefore of dark roots), merely the color of gold itself.

Your suggestion of the OED is a good one if anyone wants to pursue this further. Meantime, here's a bit more on golden hair and other Petrarchan conventions (and Shakespeare's satire on them) for anyone who's interested:

http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/130

Carol

The gilt/"dark roots" was just a joke, hence the smiley face.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Coming up



 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> To throw in the proverbial monkey wrench, "blonde" does date back to the 15thC. (Merriam-Webster), but I beg of thee, don't make make me haul out my magnifier to cite the first instance in the OED.
>
> Also, "gilt"in re: Sumptuary Laws can refer to a coating or plating of gold on metal, suggesting a superficial effect. Maybe she had dark roots? :-)
>
> Judy

Carol responds:

I cheated a bit and Googled "first use of blonde in English," which led me to Wikipedia, which I wouldn't trust except that it cited the OED, which gives the first use of "blonde" in English as 1481, a bit late to describe EW as E4's "bride" in 1461 but possibly applicable to her in the late years of her marriage. (After her widowhood, she would probably have covered up her hair.) I don't think, though, that the word was ever applied to her whether or not it was applicable.

However, as far as I can determine, "gilt" as a hair color does not have the connotation of gold plating or edging (and therefore of dark roots), merely the color of gold itself.

Your suggestion of the OED is a good one if anyone wants to pursue this further. Meantime, here's a bit more on golden hair and other Petrarchan conventions (and Shakespeare's satire on them) for anyone who's interested:

http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/130

Carol

Costner is in the next Superman movie, to be released this summer. He plays Clark Kent's father. Woohoo.



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore.  He made some terrific films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after Waterworld.  

Heh. Unless they radically redo the Superman franchise, that probably guarantees Costner, oh, maybe three minutes of screen time.

Meanwhile, I'd forgotten he'd done yet another big flop after *Waterworld* (aka "Fishtar") -- *The Postman*, which came two years later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postman_%28film%29







-----Original Message-----
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC


Costner is in the next Superman movie, to be released this summer. He plays
Clark Kent's father. Woohoo.



--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
wrote:
>
> I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore. He made some terrific
films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after
Waterworld. Â




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

No kidding, no wonder the marriage was not consummated!

On May 11, 2013, at 3:51 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



What I want to know is, what was the portrait of Henry like that made Anne agree to marry him? She must have had a shock when she was what he really looked it.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 18:23
Subject: Anne of Cleve's story from......guess who!

The most infamous royal art commission in British history is Hans Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves<http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/8/8/12388-portrait-of-anne-of-cleves-hans-the-younger-holbein.jpg>. In 1539 king Henry VIII, in his late 40s and already married three times, was considering a proposal to this lucky, lucky princess. The marriage had political attractions, but Henry had to know the princess was beautiful. Verbal reports were glowing ý but Henry needed something more, so he sent Holbein, the King's Painter, on a mission to paint Anne from life.

The story goes like this: Holbein painted a beautiful picture of Anne of Cleves, and his art made her seem beautiful in herself. Evenly balanced, almost heraldically flat, laden with jewelled colour, the picture gave her features a harmony that Henry fell in love with. The marriage was made, the princess came to England ý and the fat, sick, ageing king<http://www.artchive.com/artchive/h/holbein/holbein_henry_viii.jpg> rejected his bride as not good-looking enough for him.

This is the anecdote that has come down through the ages, retold by biographers and art historians alike. But what about the notorious portrait itself? To see it you have to go to the Louvre<http://www.louvre.fr/llv/commun/home.jsp?bmLocale=en>, where it hangs not among British, but German paintings, near a Venus by Lucas Cranach<http://www.passionforpaintings.com/art-gallery/lucas-cranach-painter/the-elder-venus-standing-in-a-landscape-1529-xx-musee-du-louvre-paris-oil-painting-reproduction>, court painter of Saxony, who dodged the Anne of Cleves commission due to illness.

Holbein's German princess is portrayed in subtle, regal colours: rich red velvet, honey gold, a green background. Yet you cannot really say he flatters Anne of Cleves ý rather, by stressing her clothes and jewels, he makes it explicit that he is showing someone at their best. Her face is nice but her eyes are dull ý this is not Holbein responding to Renaissance ideas of beauty but Holbein doing his best to balance honesty and decorum. To see this, you just have to compare Anne of Cleves with his portrait ý also commissioned by Henry for the same purpose ý of another potential bride, Christina of Denmark<http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/hans-holbein-the-younger-christina-of-denmark-duchess-of-milan>. This painting<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/painting> of the one who got away and avoided marriage with Henry VIII is much more beguiling. It is in the National Gallery<http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/national-gallery>.
Christina looks out of mourning robes with a Mona Lisa smile.

Obviously, to compare potential Tudor brides in this way is to speak an archaic and pernicious language of beauty. But this was the Renaissance: it invented the myth of beauty. The fascinating thing about Henry VIII and his bridal portraits is that classical ideals, revived in Renaissance Italy and taken to new heights in the art of Leonardo<http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-lost-battles-by-jonathan-jones-2268855.html> and Raphael<http://www.abcgallery.com/R/raphael/raphael55.JPG>, become a political issue. International diplomacy mingles with the visual language of the most modern art of the day. At moments like this we see how much higher the status of artists was in the Renaissance than it is today ý no royal has ever asked Lucian Freud for this kind of help.

The historian David Starkey<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Wives-Queens-Henry-VIII/dp/0099437244> argues there is no real evidence that Holbein's portrait influenced Henry's decision to marry Anne of Cleves. There is no record of his reaction to it (unlike Holbein's Christina of Denmark, which delighted him so much he had musicians play all day, so he could feast on the food of love). Instead, claims Starkey, it was the verbal testimony of influential courtiers that won him over to marry Anne of Cleves rather than Christina.

This would at least help answer the obvious question the traditional tale leaves hanging in the air ý how did Holbein get away with it? If his painting seduced the king only for the old monster to be disillusioned, why was Holbein not savagely punished?

When you contemplate the painting, it is hard to believe that Holbein's eye counted for nothing. Without portraying Anne of Cleves as a Renaissance beauty he does picture her as a true princess, modest, stylish, quietly capable. He does not make her look like a Raphael. But he does make her look like a Holbein. And at least this unfortunate royal has that historical victory.

On May 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com><mailto:justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:

Doug wrote:
> We all seem to agree "gilt = blonde", just not *how* blonde; ie, brown w/gold highlights, etc) is there information about *when* "blonde" replaced "gilt" and, most importantly, do we have any true-to-life portraits of some person from that period?
> If "blonde" is taken from French, which I seem to recall it is, then the period we'd be looking for wouldn't be before sometime around 1650, would it? Rubens, maybe?
> Of course, that period is *also* when the wearing of those massive wigs began...
>
> Do we know when "blonde" replaced "gilt"?

Carol responds:

"Gilt" means "gold" or "golden," so it would surely mean "golden blond" (like the hair in the stained glass depictions of E IV's children). Whether it was used to describe EW's hair in any contemporary or early source, I don't know.

Regarding "blond/blonde." I did the same search as Sandra and found only that it was first used in English in the fifteenth century, "gilt" as an adjective in the fourteenth and as a noun, including as slang for money, in the fifteenth.

I checked a Shakespeare concordance (yes, I know; it's the next century) because I didn't recall his using "blond/blonde" and I was right--he doesn't. I didn't check all the instances of "gilt," but the ones I did check were for the noun form, unrelated to hair. He seems to have used "golden" as it relates to hair. (BTW, golden hair as one of the attributes of a beautiful woman was a Petrarchan convention and would have been familiar to educated Englishmen and -women from the fourteenth century onward. That ideal may well have contributed to Edward's desire for EW and his willingness to abandon Eleanor Butler for her, especially if EB was, as a J-AH suggests, dark haired.)

I also checked a Chaucer concordance. No references to "blond/blonde" (probably too early); "gilt" is used only to mean "guilt," "golden" is used only with reference to armor," and "haire" is used only once in connection with a hair shirt.

Not sure how helpful all this is.

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Mere babies......we actually got Plantagenets in the late 1960's!

On May 11, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: SandraMachin
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

> Iýd have preferred to do History and Geography, and drop Maths. It would
> have spared my Maths teacher a great deal of stress. I managed the grand
> total of 4% in my mocks, after which he gently took me aside and said it
> would perhaps be better if I revised something else during his lessons. I
> could have told him that the first day of my first year. I have some sort
> of figure-blindness/phobia. Panic sets in and my grey cells seize up. The
> 4% was probably for getting my name right.

Nah - you only get 2% for that. I was tolerable at Maths but hopeless at
learning foreign languages, and managed to get 2% in Modern Greek.

But if youse are all in the same age-range as me - I'm 54 - opting for
History wouldn't have brought you any Plantagenets. O-Level History in
those days meant Russia and Germany in the 19th and 20th C.

I just copied it from a listing from Google when I searched for portrait of Anne of Cleves. I thought it was interesting, and I copied only the text, as I thought the painting would not post.

On May 11, 2013, at 5:41 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> The most infamous royal art commission in British history is Hans Holbein's portrait of Anne of Cleves<http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/8/8/12388-portrait-of-anne-of-cleves-hans-the-younger-holbein.jpg>. [snip]

Carol responds:

Hi, Pam. This is an art blog from the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/27/holbein-engineer-royal-wedding , right? You might want to put it in quotes with the URL next time just to be safe. (I didn't guess who wrote the article. I had to to look it up to find out.) Interesting stuff, but the blogger could have done a better job with the URLs.

Carol

And the 1950s! But the slant was beginning to move from the kings toward the
social aspect, e.g. what the ordinary people did rather than the royals,
nobility. politics, battles. I wanted the latter, and being deprived of so
much of it was actually what finally swayed me to drop History in favour of
Geography. That was Third Year me, of course, having to decide which GCE
subjects I would pursue. Now I'm eager to know History in all its aspects. I
wish I had been able to do both subjects, but the way my particular academic
talents lay, I had to choose between the two.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:30 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

Mere babies......we actually got Plantagenets in the late 1960's!

A friend of mine's partner was a very old friend of Rickman's. I think
they were at drama school together. She got very ill, could no longer
work, and got into a lot of trouble with the tax man. Alan paid the bill
without a word to anyone.
What a gent!
Paul

On 11/05/2013 21:30, SandraMachin wrote:
> I too like Alan Rickman. Does anyone remember him in 1982 as Mr. Slope in The Barchester Chronicles? Wonderful.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:24 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
>
> I thought he was in the first one as well.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mailto:khafara%40aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:22 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
> Rickman had just done the first Die Hard film - where he got the best one-liners and had far more on-screen chemistry with Bonnie Bedelia than did Bruce Willis (who was supposed to be her ex-husband) - so he wasn't chopped liver himself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Ever heard Bill Nighy sing? he has a great voice. Played a rock singer
in one movie and people thought he was dubbed because his voice was so good!
Paul

On 11/05/2013 21:32, Pamela Bain wrote:
> I certainly hope so, and he is far more charming, probably a hell of a lot smarter, and just oozes the je ne c'est qua, that make me adore him. Sorry hubby, it is what it is! Costner, yucky Cruise, and smarmy George Clooney, nope not for me. Another of my faves is Bill Nighy. He is marvelous, and does everything from kookie comedy to treachery. Some of the time I really like Kenneth Branagh, but not always. He is great in the Wallander Series.
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of khafara@...
> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
>
>
> Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.
>
> Tamara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
> To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>> <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
> Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
> But I love Alan Rickman.....
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com><mailto:mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>>
> wrote:
>
> Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
> doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
> difference. Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
> English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
> *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
> post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
> by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
> have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
> fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
> Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
> film production.
>> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
> so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>> Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
>>> Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
>>> When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
>>> stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
>>> director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
>>> considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
>>> director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
>>> show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
>>> The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
>>> ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
>>> Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
>>> years!
>>> The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
>>> I miss it terribly!
>>> Paul
>>> p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
>>> on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
>>> at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
>>> suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Don't think he's ever stopped working.
Did you forget he won Best Director Oscar for Dances with Wolves? One of
my favourite films.
He is playing Superman's earthly dad Mr Kent in Man of Steel, and did a
huge western tv series last year.
Paul


On 11/05/2013 21:56, liz williams wrote:
> I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore. He made some terrific films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after Waterworld.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
>
> Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.
>
> Tamara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
> Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
> But I love Alan Rickman.....
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
> doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
> difference. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
> English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
> *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
> post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
> by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
>> Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
> have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
> fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
> Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
>> Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
> film production.
>> As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
> so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>> Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
>>> Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
>>> When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
>>> stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
>>> director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
>>> considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
>>> director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
>>> show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
>>> The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
>>> ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
>>> Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
>>> years!
>>> The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
>>> I miss it terribly!
>>> Paul
>>> p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
>>> on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
>>> at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
>>> suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi, Paul -

*Dances with Wolves* is one of my all-time favourite movies! It brought the
Canadian aboriginal actor Graham Green to prominence - a wonderful actor!
The difference is that Costner's dry Mid-western (?) accent fit the role of
the cavalry officer; he was obviously miscast as Robin Hood, which is a
pity, because otherwise it was a pretty good movie. Of course I agree with
the consensus of approbation for Alan Rickman - his Snape in my view, is the
best thing about the Harry Potter movies. But then I'm not an HP fan by any
means, far preferring the Peter Jackson Tolkien movies.



I am just dying to see more Richard III on film. Unfortunately, I don't
think there has been *one* which presented Richard as other than a purely
evil villain (well, with perhaps the exception of his bravery at the end).
So I think the world is ready to see a film which tries to depict the *real*
Richard and his times. I wonder if that will be a film based on PL's book,
as has been suggested. There was a rumour going around a while ago (which I
think seemed to be confirmed on the Scotsman website) that RA had been
chosen to play Richard in the film of Ms. Langley's book, but I haven't
heard anything more recently about this.



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 Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC





Don't think he's ever stopped working.
Did you forget he won Best Director Oscar for Dances with Wolves? One of
my favourite films.
He is playing Superman's earthly dad Mr Kent in Man of Steel, and did a
huge western tv series last year.
Paul

On 11/05/2013 21:56, liz williams wrote:
> I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore. He made some terrific
films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after
Waterworld.

He's actually the same age as Richard Armitage



________________________________
From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 22:59
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

 

That's his grey-blonde hair. Give it an auburn cast and then compare him to the NPG portrait or the morph. His face shape is right, and he's the right height at 5'6" or so.

His wrinkles are easily dealt with -- that's why God gave us pancake makeup -- and he hasn't gone jowly yet, his skin's still firm enough to conform to his neck and face (which also means he's been able to keep his weight steady through his adult life).

Tamara

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up

I was really surprised when I found out his age, I thought he was much older
too.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 17:46
Subject: Re: Coming up

He looks older than Richard Armitage.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, khafara@... wrote:
>
> (Looks up "Martin Freeman" via Yahoo, notes, physical appearance, career and
number of meaty roles)
>
> Hmm. He does look about right, and considering he has all of the art, tools
and skill of 21st-century makeup artists at his disposal, I think he could very
well do.
>
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margie Deck <margiedeck2@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, May 10, 2013 5:01 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Coming up
>
>
> Although I usually lurk since I don't believe I know enough of the history to
> comment, I do have to say: I think Martin Freeman (only a couple of years too
> old) could play Richard. He is small(ish) and can portray the three 's':
strong,
> sensitive and smart.
>
> Margie
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:32 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> > If we get Daniel in, there must be a clause in his contract that he will not

> hyperventilate, nor look like a bunny caught in the headlights at any point,
in
> any scene. And he will use his sword far better than That Universe ever
allowed
> Harry to use his wand.
> >
> > PS. Is there room for Michael Gambon or Brian Blessed anywhere, do you
think?
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > > You could do worse than Daniel Radcliffe. It's true that he doesn't look
> > > that much like Richard, but he's got some of the "gracile" quality and
> > > intelligence that I believe Richard had. Also he's young. J
> > >
> > > Johanne
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh I like Tin Cup (but my golf playing boss of the time absolutely hated it, thought it was ludicrous.)  Thirteen Days is great (and even my 16 year old niece really liked it),I loved Dance with Wolves and Field of Dreams is one of my absolutely favourite films. 
 
I think Hollywood being what it is, the perceived failure of Waterworld meant he was seen as a bit of a has been and he wasn't able to follow it up with a great movie.  That coupled with the stories about his arrogance etc, probably meant that people didn't want to do him any favours when he was in need of them.


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 23:15
Subject: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC

 
Well, I'm more than happy with Waterworld and Tin Cup and The Postman :) And the critics (as well as me) loved Thirteen Days and Open Range (one of the best westerns in the last few decades). He hasn't had a bit film hit in a while but Hatfields & McCoys got good reviews. He's not the best actor in the world but he has a great stack of films to his credit overall.

Col

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore.  He made some terrific films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after Waterworld.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "khafara@..." <khafara@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
>  
> Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.
>
> Tamara
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
> Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
> But I love Alan Rickman.....
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
> doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
> difference. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
> English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
> *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
> post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
> by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
> >
> > Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
> have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
> fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
> Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
> >
> > Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
> film production.
> >
> > As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
> so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > > years!
> > > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > > I miss it terribly!
> > > Paul
> > > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Coming up


> He's actually the same age as Richard Armitage

He looks a bit more like Richard though (apart from the nose) and he's the
right height and build. And he plays a soldier and man of action very well
in Sherlock.

Not that we're going to find any actor who's a perfect match without a lot
of make-up work, because anybody who had a chin like that, probably wouldn't
become an actor.

Btw I was wrong to say that the only physical dofference (as opposed to
difference in expression) between the SoA portrait and the reconstruction
was the shape of the cartilaginous bit on the end of his nose. If you
compare the portrait with the reconstruction seen from the same angle, the
artist sems to have moved his mouth a tiny bit down, giving him a longer
upper lip and shorter chin than he should have (and of course the far-side
eye is wonky, just as it is in the NPG portrait). Such a pity we don't
still have the originals.

I think this is true, Liz. I think he probably has great films to come, still, and depending on the kind of film people like, Waterworld is, I maintain, a good couple of hours of entertainment. There are other decent actors who get a poor press for their acting skills, or moodiness, like Val Kilmer, or like Keanu Reeves, who is actually very well thought-of in the industry, I gather. (I like a lot of Keanu Reeves films too - perhaps I just like the underdog!)

Col

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Oh I like Tin Cup (but my golf playing boss of the time absolutely hated it, thought it was ludicrous.)  Thirteen Days is great (and even my 16 year old niece really liked it),I loved Dance with Wolves and Field of Dreams is one of my absolutely favourite films. 
>  
> I think Hollywood being what it is, the perceived failure of Waterworld meant he was seen as a bit of a has been and he wasn't able to follow it up with a great movie.  That coupled with the stories about his arrogance etc, probably meant that people didn't want to do him any favours when he was in need of them.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 23:15
> Subject: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
>
>  
> Well, I'm more than happy with Waterworld and Tin Cup and The Postman :) And the critics (as well as me) loved Thirteen Days and Open Range (one of the best westerns in the last few decades). He hasn't had a bit film hit in a while but Hatfields & McCoys got good reviews. He's not the best actor in the world but he has a great stack of films to his credit overall.
>
> Col
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't think Costner really had a career anymore.  He made some terrific films in his heydey but it all went down the pan (forgive the pun) after Waterworld.  
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "khafara@" <khafara@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, 11 May 2013, 21:26
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
> >
> >  
> > Alan Rickman just spent the last twelve years as a lead character in one of the most lucrative film franchises ever created. He may no longer be what Hollywood thinks of as a leading man, but I warrant he's in much better shape career-wise than Kevin Costner.
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sat, May 11, 2013 9:07 am
> > Subject: Re: Re: Robin Hood OFF TOPIC
> >
> > But I love Alan Rickman.....
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On May 11, 2013, at 12:34 PM, "mairemulholland" <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com<mailto:mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Rickman at the time would not have been huge box office. Despite his success, I
> > doubt he's a big movie box office today. Costner was. That's the only
> > difference. Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I seem to remember Costner whinging in interviews at the time that he wanted
> > English-accent coaching but never got it before filming, and the director
> > *promised* Costner he could get the coaching and dub in the action
> > post-production. So, in effect, it wasn't Costner's fault that he got demolished
> > by the media for creating an American Robin Hood.
> > >
> > > Yeah. Right. If Costner-the-producer hadn't been all ego and money, he would
> > have put a Brit in that role. He should be grateful to Rickman and the rest of a
> > fine cast for making his investment pay off, because it certainly wasn't
> > Costner's performance that made that movie a success.
> > >
> > > Please, oh, PLEASE do not let them cast an American as Richard in any major
> > film production.
> > >
> > > As for Waterworld, considering Costner was the sole reason the production went
> > so far over budget, I'm surprised the director didn't execute the actor.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Belated response to someone, sorry forgotten who, who mentioned Robin
> > > > Hood Prince of Thieves and Alan Rickman.
> > > > When Costner saw the rough cut he was so upset at how Alan Rickman had
> > > > stolen the film from him that, being producer, he took it away from the
> > > > director Kevin Reynolds and recut it, reducing Rickman's performance
> > > > considerably, to the film's detriment. It was evantually restored to the
> > > > director's wishes on DVD, and benefits much from Rickman's wonderful
> > > > show. He was clearly having a ball, and so does anyone seeing him!
> > > > The Director had been Costner's best friend for many years and they
> > > > ended not speaking to each other. The same thing happened on Waterworld.
> > > > Same star and director, same recut after filming, same not speaking for
> > > > years!
> > > > The film business is such a joy at times!:-)
> > > > I miss it terribly!
> > > > Paul
> > > > p.s. World Without End was one of the worse historical dramas ever seen
> > > > on tv! Don't know what the book was like, but they had made a fair stab
> > > > at the authors earlier book Pillars of the Earth. They may have been
> > > > suffering from post The Tudors thinking......
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>