Richmond and the White Queen

Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
My research clearly has a long way to go!
Paul
......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
characters of scandalous dimensions.

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think you're being far too kind to it...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 11:26
Subject: Richmond and the White Queen



 
Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
My research clearly has a long way to go!
Paul
......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
characters of scandalous dimensions.

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I'll endorse that. It was truly, truly awful. And we were told that Henry T was a rightful heir because he was H6's nephew (no mention of how his surname happened to be Tudor, not Plantagenet). Also a hint of 'romance' between MB (who was actually not badly played) and Jasper Tudor!: ) Truly, truly awful and as Paul says, what a misuse of a great period of history.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 11:26
Subject: Richmond and the White Queen


 

Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
My research clearly has a long way to go!
Paul
......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
characters of scandalous dimensions.

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

For the sake of my sanity and blood pressure I have decided not to watch it. I tried last week and managed five minutes at the beginning and five minutes at the end, which was more than enough. The bit I saw was embarrassing and it is getting worse by the sound of it. I don't think I want anyone to play Richard because they are never going to get it right and every time there is a dramatisation of the period we have to endure someone else's interpretation full of mistakes which with a bit of genuine research and a focus on the facts could have been passable if not great. Lack of professionalism, inferior acting and lack of attention to detail and allowing the author to much input. Philippa Gregory admits she oversaw the fine details as to props etc, pity she couldn't have got those details right then. That is the thing; she claims she does not invents things therefore when she does her admirers defend her on the grounds that she is telling the truth. It's like a double bluff because she claims that she only gives the facts and then deliberately misleads or distorts.
Elaine



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I'll endorse that. It was truly, truly awful. And we were told that Henry T was a rightful heir because he was H6's nephew (no mention of how his surname happened to be Tudor, not Plantagenet). Also a hint of 'romance' between MB (who was actually not badly played) and Jasper Tudor!: ) Truly, truly awful and as Paul says, what a misuse of a great period of history.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 11:26
> Subject: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>
>  
>
> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> My research clearly has a long way to go!
> Paul
> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> My research clearly has a long way to go!
> Paul
> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
There is something on the BBC website under the address
bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
Paul

On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>> Paul
>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Some in this programme must have discovered the elixir of youth - Charles looked about 16 - whilst others like our poor Richard are prematurely aged. Clarence has looked about 25 from the beginning. Middleham/Warwick Castle, or whatever it was, was interesting with its pepper port turrets and you keep getting that glimpse of the Tower across a pond? If it wasn't our period I watch it to hoot at it, but it's likely to undermine viewers' perceptions of the WOTR forever and they'll never want to see another programme about it again. Sad, very sad.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 16:01
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen

 

Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> My research clearly has a long way to go!
> Paul
> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

She's doing something somewhere about how she's proved Richard murdered the Princes - you know that trip to Canterbury in penance.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 17:08
Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen


 

Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
There is something on the BBC website under the address
bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
Paul

On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>> Paul
>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Amy Licence just goes through the facts, correctly for the most part,
though she buys into the names of "Cousins War" and "White Princess" as
if in common usage but invented by PG.
BBC have a nerve calling it history though, and there is no place for
comments I can see, else they'd get it both barrels from me!
Paul


On 24/06/2013 17:08, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
> forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
> gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
> prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
> though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
> There is something on the BBC website under the address
> bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
> what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
> Paul
>
> On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
>> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
>> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
>> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>>> Paul
>>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Too bad we can't run a disclaimer at the start of every episode. 

Of course, what I'd like to say is: "Caution: the following drivel is not suitable viewing for intelligent and well-educated persons and may be linked to elevated blood pressure, migraine headache, and severe mood swings."

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen



 
Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
There is something on the BBC website under the address
bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
Paul

On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>> Paul
>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

here it is. Main lie, after Richard became king EW and her daughters
returned to sanctuary.

*As the new 10-part drama series "The White Queen" continues on BBC One,
historian Amy Licence delves behind the myth to find the real Elizabeth
Woodville.*

Elizabeth Woodville was born around 1437 at Grafton Regis,
Northamptonshire. Her mother had been married to a son of Henry IV but
after he died, the wealthy widow controversially became the wife of her
social inferior, the knight Richard Woodville. Elizabeth was the eldest
of their 14 children. She married, aged about 15, and soon after the
country erupted in civil war. Known as the "Wars of the Roses
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00546sp>" or "Cousins' War," this
pitched the "red" Lancastrians against the "white" Yorkists in a
struggle for the throne.


The beautiful widow

Continue reading the main story
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22840690#story_continues_2>





Elizabeth's first husband, the Lancastrian Sir John Grey, was killed at
the Battle of St Albans. Now his enemy Edward IV sat on the throne.
Early in 1464, Elizabeth appealed to him for help after her husband's
lands were confiscated as an enemy of the "white" regime. Legend has it
that Elizabeth entranced Edward with her beauty, after lying in wait for
him beneath an oak tree in Whittlebury Forest. In reality, the meeting
may have been more mundane; they had probably met before, as the
Woodvilles had been prominent at court under the Lancastrian Henry VI.

Her beauty, described by historian Thomas Penn as "cold" and
"lynx-eyed," drew the Yorkist king's attention. The 16th Century writer
Thomas More, wrote that he was "enamoured" of her and described "much
wooing and many great promises." Yet Elizabeth was not content to become
just another royal conquest. Out of piety or ambition, she refused to
become Edward's mistress, but his passion for her spurred him to make a
surprising proposal of marriage.


Marriage to the king

For Elizabeth, the offer of a crown was irresistible. It meant her two
young sons, parents and siblings would be well provided for. Hers was a
whirlwind courtship but she would have been a fool not to accept what
Edward could offer. The marriage was conducted in secret, as the last
union of a King with a commoner had taken place in 1066. Edward knew it
would prove unpopular because he would be expected to marry a foreign
princess and secure alliances for the Yorkist regime. The ceremony was
conducted in the late spring of 1464, at Elizabeth's parental home. A
"red" Lancastrian by birth she was now part of the "white" Yorkist
family and England's Queen, yet Edward delayed announcing the marriage
for five months.

Continue reading the main story
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22840690#story_continues_3>


Elizabeth Woodville key facts


* Born around 1437 in Northamptonshire
* Married young to the Lancastrian Sir John Grey. He died at the
Battle of St. Albans in 1461
* Married to the YorkistKing Edward IV
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/edward_iv_king.shtml>in
1464. She bore him 10 children
* After Edward's death, his brotherRichard III
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/king_richard_iii>seized the
throne and imprisoned her two sons in the Tower

*


When the alliance was finally made public, that September, Edward's
family and most of England's nobility were outraged by his choice.
According to Thomas More, the Queen Mother was "sore moved" by the news
and chided her son for marrying "out of his realm." While none could
deny the bride's personal charms or piety, her large family was widely
disliked for its ambition. Parliament did not hold back, telling the
King that the 27-year-old Lancastrian widow was "no match" for him. Yet
Edward stood firm and Elizabeth's formal presentation to Parliament was
marked by respectful ceremony.

Elizabeth would go on to bear Edward 10 children. Their eldest son and
heir arrived in dramatic circumstances, amid fresh outbreaks of civil
war. She was eight months pregnant when the King was forced into exile
abroad, following a Lancastrian coup to return Henry VI to the throne in
1470. In the middle of the night, Elizabeth fled to sanctuary at
Westminster Abbey. Far from her accustomed luxury at court, she gave
birth in poverty and uncertainty. Her son was born safely and named
after his father.

Fortunately, Edward returned at the head of an avenging army in 1471 and
the next 12 years were comparatively peaceful. The marriage was a happy
one, although the Queen had to turn a blind eye to her husband's affairs
and Edward's most famous mistress, Jane Shore, was present on many court
occasions.


Princes in the Tower

When Edward died in 1483, Elizabeth's world changed completely. Her
twelve-year-old son was declared king Edward V, while his uncle Richard
was appointed Protector. However, rumours surfaced that Elizabeth's
husband had made a previous betrothal which would have invalidated her
marriage and made her children illegitimate. Richard took the throne and
shut his nephew Edward and his younger brother in the Tower of London.
They were never seen again and historians today still disagree about
their fates.

Continue reading the main story
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22840690#story_continues_4>






Elizabeth and her daughters returned to their Westminster sanctuary.
Forced to accept the situation, the dowager Queen had little choice but
to hope for better days, until an old Lancastrian ally, Margaret
Beaufort, proposed a marriage between her own son, the exiled Henry
Tudor and Elizabeth's eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. Following the
disappearance of her brothers, Elizabeth of York could claim to be the
legitimate heir. She became Tudor's wife and the first Queen of that
dynasty after Henry had defeated her uncle Richard III at Bosworth Field
in 1485.

Soon after this, the "White Queen" retired from public life to make way
for the reign of her daughter, the "White Princess". She embraced a life
of quiet contemplation in Bermondsey Abbey, dying in 1492.



On 24/06/2013 17:08, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
> forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
> gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
> prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
> though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
> There is something on the BBC website under the address
> bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
> what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
> Paul
>
> On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
>> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
>> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
>> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>>> Paul
>>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a
quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth
of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we
see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at
the start of the episode!
Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
Paul

On 24/06/2013 17:38, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Amy Licence just goes through the facts, correctly for the most part,
> though she buys into the names of "Cousins War" and "White Princess" as
> if in common usage but invented by PG.
> BBC have a nerve calling it history though, and there is no place for
> comments I can see, else they'd get it both barrels from me!
> Paul
>
>
> On 24/06/2013 17:08, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
>> forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
>> gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
>> prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
>> though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
>> There is something on the BBC website under the address
>> bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
>> what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
>>> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
>>> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
>>> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
>>> Marie
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>>>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>>>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>>>> Paul
>>>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>>>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>>>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>>>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>>>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>>>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Retired to Bermondsey?
Love it - not.
Paul

On 24/06/2013 17:43, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> here it is. Main lie, after Richard became king EW and her daughters
> returned to sanctuary.
>
> *As the new 10-part drama series "The White Queen" continues on BBC One,
> historian Amy Licence delves behind the myth to find the real Elizabeth
> Woodville.*
>
> Elizabeth Woodville was born around 1437 at Grafton Regis,
> Northamptonshire. Her mother had been married to a son of Henry IV but
> after he died, the wealthy widow controversially became the wife of her
> social inferior, the knight Richard Woodville. Elizabeth was the eldest
> of their 14 children. She married, aged about 15, and soon after the
> country erupted in civil war. Known as the "Wars of the Roses
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00546sp>" or "Cousins' War," this
> pitched the "red" Lancastrians against the "white" Yorkists in a
> struggle for the throne.
>
>
> The beautiful widow
>
> Continue reading the main story
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22840690#story_continues_2>
>
>
>
>
>
> Elizabeth's first husband, the Lancastrian Sir John Grey, was killed at
> the Battle of St Albans. Now his enemy Edward IV sat on the throne.
> Early in 1464, Elizabeth appealed to him for help after her husband's
> lands were confiscated as an enemy of the "white" regime. Legend has it
> that Elizabeth entranced Edward with her beauty, after lying in wait for
> him beneath an oak tree in Whittlebury Forest. In reality, the meeting
> may have been more mundane; they had probably met before, as the
> Woodvilles had been prominent at court under the Lancastrian Henry VI.
>
> Her beauty, described by historian Thomas Penn as "cold" and
> "lynx-eyed," drew the Yorkist king's attention. The 16th Century writer
> Thomas More, wrote that he was "enamoured" of her and described "much
> wooing and many great promises." Yet Elizabeth was not content to become
> just another royal conquest. Out of piety or ambition, she refused to
> become Edward's mistress, but his passion for her spurred him to make a
> surprising proposal of marriage.
>
>
> Marriage to the king
>
> For Elizabeth, the offer of a crown was irresistible. It meant her two
> young sons, parents and siblings would be well provided for. Hers was a
> whirlwind courtship but she would have been a fool not to accept what
> Edward could offer. The marriage was conducted in secret, as the last
> union of a King with a commoner had taken place in 1066. Edward knew it
> would prove unpopular because he would be expected to marry a foreign
> princess and secure alliances for the Yorkist regime. The ceremony was
> conducted in the late spring of 1464, at Elizabeth's parental home. A
> "red" Lancastrian by birth she was now part of the "white" Yorkist
> family and England's Queen, yet Edward delayed announcing the marriage
> for five months.
>
> Continue reading the main story
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22840690#story_continues_3>
>
>
> Elizabeth Woodville key facts
>
>
> * Born around 1437 in Northamptonshire
> * Married young to the Lancastrian Sir John Grey. He died at the
> Battle of St. Albans in 1461
> * Married to the YorkistKing Edward IV
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/edward_iv_king.shtml>in
> 1464. She bore him 10 children
> * After Edward's death, his brotherRichard III
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/king_richard_iii>seized the
> throne and imprisoned her two sons in the Tower
>
> *
>
>
> When the alliance was finally made public, that September, Edward's
> family and most of England's nobility were outraged by his choice.
> According to Thomas More, the Queen Mother was "sore moved" by the news
> and chided her son for marrying "out of his realm." While none could
> deny the bride's personal charms or piety, her large family was widely
> disliked for its ambition. Parliament did not hold back, telling the
> King that the 27-year-old Lancastrian widow was "no match" for him. Yet
> Edward stood firm and Elizabeth's formal presentation to Parliament was
> marked by respectful ceremony.
>
> Elizabeth would go on to bear Edward 10 children. Their eldest son and
> heir arrived in dramatic circumstances, amid fresh outbreaks of civil
> war. She was eight months pregnant when the King was forced into exile
> abroad, following a Lancastrian coup to return Henry VI to the throne in
> 1470. In the middle of the night, Elizabeth fled to sanctuary at
> Westminster Abbey. Far from her accustomed luxury at court, she gave
> birth in poverty and uncertainty. Her son was born safely and named
> after his father.
>
> Fortunately, Edward returned at the head of an avenging army in 1471 and
> the next 12 years were comparatively peaceful. The marriage was a happy
> one, although the Queen had to turn a blind eye to her husband's affairs
> and Edward's most famous mistress, Jane Shore, was present on many court
> occasions.
>
>
> Princes in the Tower
>
> When Edward died in 1483, Elizabeth's world changed completely. Her
> twelve-year-old son was declared king Edward V, while his uncle Richard
> was appointed Protector. However, rumours surfaced that Elizabeth's
> husband had made a previous betrothal which would have invalidated her
> marriage and made her children illegitimate. Richard took the throne and
> shut his nephew Edward and his younger brother in the Tower of London.
> They were never seen again and historians today still disagree about
> their fates.
>
> Continue reading the main story
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/22840690#story_continues_4>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Elizabeth and her daughters returned to their Westminster sanctuary.
> Forced to accept the situation, the dowager Queen had little choice but
> to hope for better days, until an old Lancastrian ally, Margaret
> Beaufort, proposed a marriage between her own son, the exiled Henry
> Tudor and Elizabeth's eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. Following the
> disappearance of her brothers, Elizabeth of York could claim to be the
> legitimate heir. She became Tudor's wife and the first Queen of that
> dynasty after Henry had defeated her uncle Richard III at Bosworth Field
> in 1485.
>
> Soon after this, the "White Queen" retired from public life to make way
> for the reign of her daughter, the "White Princess". She embraced a life
> of quiet contemplation in Bermondsey Abbey, dying in 1492.
>
>
>
> On 24/06/2013 17:08, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
>> forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
>> gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
>> prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
>> though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
>> There is something on the BBC website under the address
>> bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
>> what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>>> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
>>> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
>>> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
>>> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
>>> Marie
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>>> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
>>>> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
>>>> My research clearly has a long way to go!
>>>> Paul
>>>> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
>>>> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
>>>> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
>>>> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
>>>> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
>>>> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It is very difficult to watch, even though I am very interested in War of Roses.

Part of the reason is that I find it difficult to like Elizabeth Woodvile and her family. They are just too selfish and greedy. Let's see, she feuded with Warrick the king maker, George Duke of Clarence, Lord Hastings, Richard as Lord Protector. I am starting to think the problem may not be everyone else but her and hers.

The only positive thing is that, at least so far in the series, they haven't portrayed Richard as evil hunch back multiple murder and nephew killer yet.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
> The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
> And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
> And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> > Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> > My research clearly has a long way to go!
> > Paul
> > ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> > switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> > Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> > inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> > wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> > characters of scandalous dimensions.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Olivier cautioned his audiences what they were going to watch was fiction. When someone who pretends for a living sees more clearly and is more honest than writers of historical romance and historians, maybe it's because honor is dead.

~Weds

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Too bad we can't run a disclaimer at the start of every episode. 
>
> Of course, what I'd like to say is: "Caution: the following drivel is not suitable viewing for intelligent and well-educated persons and may be linked to elevated blood pressure, migraine headache, and severe mood swings."
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>
>
>  
> Edward, knowing there is a revolt in progress goes riding off into the
> forest alone! Just in time for Warwick and George of Richmond with a
> gang of soldiers, well at least two, to arrest him and take him a
> prisoner to that Belgian castle that's pretending to be Middleham,
> though in fact Warwick took him to Warwick castle.
> There is something on the BBC website under the address
> bbc.co.uk/history by Amy licence. I am steeling myself to go and see
> what she's put, though how the BBC can put it up under history is beyond me?
> Paul
>
> On 24/06/2013 16:01, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > Oh God, wasn't it awful? And if even a 15th-century addict like me found it boring, could it possibly hold the attention of anybody over the age of 14?
> > The only improvement was in the gowns. Finally they seem to have got the idea with the "high-waisted gowns" - ie that there is no waist. But what a hotch-potch! There were hairdos and gowns straight out of Italian Renaissance paintings, and headdresses from every decade of the 15th century and every part of Europe.
> > And now we know why Edward's hose were so baggy - they're really breeches (the extra space, no doubt, being needed to house his brain).
> > And wasn't it great to see Charles the Bold already Duke of Burgundy and holidaying in England in 1465? I hope Edward put him up in a suitably smart hotel - the Dorchester or something.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> >> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> >> My research clearly has a long way to go!
> >> Paul
> >> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> >> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> >> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> >> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> >> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> >> characters of scandalous dimensions.

Head's up -- the most emotion we've seen their Richard show was when he stole a sword from a nearby guard (what, he's supposed to be too young to be trusted with live steel?) and lunged forward to stab Henry VI while he was sitting quietly ahorse in the courtyard.

Okay, They've now established Richard of Gloucester is calm calm calm until it comes to avenging Edmund and his father's deaths, and he's willing to kill a king, and big brother Edward will soothe little Richard's tempestuous impulses.

Watch this space: because when Something is made an issue in fiction/onscreen out of the blue like that, it *usually* means there's a reason for it, and it will crop up again.

So character trait #1: their Richard is impulsive and quick-tempered.

Must say something nice. Okay. The hawks were nice.

~Weds

Hear, hear.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well thank you Philippa Gregory,. I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> My research clearly has a long way to go!
> Paul
> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Agree. I felt it was like attending a medieval banquet where everyone is dressed in their home made costume in the style that they think is appropriate. Then you go to somewhere like the Tewkesbury re-enactment and see all the re-enactors in correct costumes and even armour. Why couldn't they have commissioned one of the groups of re-enactors.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> For the sake of my sanity and blood pressure I have decided not to watch it. I tried last week and managed five minutes at the beginning and five minutes at the end, which was more than enough. The bit I saw was embarrassing and it is getting worse by the sound of it. I don't think I want anyone to play Richard because they are never going to get it right and every time there is a dramatisation of the period we have to endure someone else's interpretation full of mistakes which with a bit of genuine research and a focus on the facts could have been passable if not great. Lack of professionalism, inferior acting and lack of attention to detail and allowing the author to much input. Philippa Gregory admits she oversaw the fine details as to props etc, pity she couldn't have got those details right then. That is the thing; she claims she does not invents things therefore when she does her admirers defend her on the grounds that she is telling the truth. It's like a double bluff because she claims that she only gives the facts and then deliberately misleads or distorts.
> Elaine
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll endorse that. It was truly, truly awful. And we were told that Henry T was a rightful heir because he was H6's nephew (no mention of how his surname happened to be Tudor, not Plantagenet). Also a hint of 'romance' between MB (who was actually not badly played) and Jasper Tudor!: ) Truly, truly awful and as Paul says, what a misuse of a great period of history.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Monday, 24 June 2013, 11:26
> > Subject: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Well thank you Philippa Gregory, I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> > Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> > My research clearly has a long way to go!
> > Paul
> > ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> > switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> > Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> > inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> > wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> > characters of scandalous dimensions.
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Paul wrote:
>
> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> Paul

Carol responds:

Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.

If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."

Carol

As they seem to blur together, go ahead, Carol. 

Go to the BBC's blog in Paul's post. A handful of our submissions - yours would be most welcome.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen



 

Paul wrote:
>
> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> Paul

Carol responds:

Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.

If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."

Carol

I just checked five minutes ago -- the only comment not totally dripping with praise was one by "bandit queen", and even her criticisms were fairly mild and restrained.

It will be interesting to see if the Beeb lets any of the really substantive (and negative) comments through.

Tamara


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> As they seem to blur together, go ahead, Carol. 
>
> Go to the BBC's blog in Paul's post. A handful of our submissions - yours would be most welcome.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>
>
>  
>
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > Paul
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>
> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> As they seem to blur together, go ahead, Carol. 
>
> Go to the BBC's blog in Paul's post. A handful of our submissions - yours would be most welcome.

Carol responds:

Thanks, but since I'm in the U.S. and can't watch "The White Queen" even if I wanted to because it's not being shown here, I don't think it would be fair for me to comment based on the tidbits available to me. I do hope, though, that someone here will comment on Anne's and Richard's ages (and Henry's, for that matter, if he's being made to look about the same age as the "White Princess"). If you can't get relative ages right, how can you be trusted with more complicated facts (much less matters of interpretation that require a knowledge of those facts)?

As for Richard murdering Henry VI in cold blood in full view of how many people, yet we don't even know for sure how he died or whether it was March 21 or 23! Good thing for my blood pressure that I *can't* watch the stupid program.

Carol

Carol, if you can get live streaming on your television, you can see "The White Queen"! It was listed for us on Amazon. My sweet hubby thought that would be just the ticket, until I screamed nooooooooo!

On Jun 25, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> As they seem to blur together, go ahead, Carol.ý
>
> Go to the BBC's blog in Paul's post. A handful of our submissions - yours would be most welcome.

Carol responds:

Thanks, but since I'm in the U.S. and can't watch "The White Queen" even if I wanted to because it's not being shown here, I don't think it would be fair for me to comment based on the tidbits available to me. I do hope, though, that someone here will comment on Anne's and Richard's ages (and Henry's, for that matter, if he's being made to look about the same age as the "White Princess"). If you can't get relative ages right, how can you be trusted with more complicated facts (much less matters of interpretation that require a knowledge of those facts)?

As for Richard murdering Henry VI in cold blood in full view of how many people, yet we don't even know for sure how he died or whether it was March 21 or 23! Good thing for my blood pressure that I *can't* watch the stupid program.

Carol

You need to press the latest comments at the bottom.
Paul

On 25/06/2013 23:50, maroonnavywhite wrote:
> I just checked five minutes ago -- the only comment not totally dripping with praise was one by "bandit queen", and even her criticisms were fairly mild and restrained.
>
> It will be interesting to see if the Beeb lets any of the really substantive (and negative) comments through.
>
> Tamara
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> As they seem to blur together, go ahead, Carol.Â
>>
>> Go to the BBC's blog in Paul's post. A handful of our submissions - yours would be most welcome.
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>> Paul
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>
>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
 
Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen

 


Paul wrote:
>
> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> Paul

Carol responds:

Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.

If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>  
> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. By the way, you might find this topic, which is more straightforward and involves less speculation, a better one for a first article for the Ricardian. Once they know you and respect your research, you can try again with Stillington. Just a thought. In any case, I'm intrigued if no one else is! (I guess they got their lands back after George's execution?)

Carol

Hi Hilary,
The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>  
> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>  
>
>
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > Paul
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>
> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 20:22
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen

 

Hear, hear.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well thank you Philippa Gregory,. I never knew Clarence wasn't Duke of
> Clarence but Duke of Richmond before you wrote White Queen.
> My research clearly has a long way to go!
> Paul
> ......who kept reaching for the fast forward during epsiode 2 before
> switching it off at the half way mark, so angry!
> Bad dialogue, dreadful acting, awful costumes, and shamefully
> inaccurate from a historical point of view! A terrible misuse of a
> wonderful period of history, and a depiction of a cast of terrific
> characters of scandalous dimensions.
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Thanks Carol. I was expecting you or Marie to chip in with 'well that was because......' Are we saying we don't know what the Woodvilles had been up to?  



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 1:11
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen

 



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>  
> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. By the way, you might find this topic, which is more straightforward and involves less speculation, a better one for a first article for the Ricardian. Once they know you and respect your research, you can try again with Stillington. Just a thought. In any case, I'm intrigued if no one else is! (I guess they got their lands back after George's execution?)

Carol

Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
 
It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen

 



Hi Hilary,
The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>  
> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>  
>
>
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > Paul
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>
> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Thanks Carol. I was expecting you or Marie to chip in with 'well that was because......' Are we saying we don't know what the Woodvilles had been up to?  

Carol responds:

I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't! We seem to go from

1) Warwick and the future Edward IV "rating" the Woodvilles as upstarts or parvenus after their arrest in 1460 (for trying to take back Calais from the Yorkists) to

2) the Woodvilles fighting on the losing side at Towton (March 29, 1461) and presumably being attainted, to

3)the Woodvilles (but not Grey, who had died at the second St. Albans, Feb. 17, 1461?) being pardoned (why?) and getting their lands back that same year, to

4) the so-called May marriage in 1464 and all the resulting earldoms, marriages, and riches to a parvenu Lancastrian family whose one claim to royal blood came through the mother, not the father, by way of the Count of Saint Pol.

Michael Hicks's badly organized DNB article on Anthony Woodville, which, surprisingly, is accessible without a DNB subscription

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/29937

skips from Towton, mentioning only that he was wounded and at first thought dead, to 1468, when Edward appointed him as naval commander for an aborted raid on Brittany and then reverts to his jousting prowess (1465 and 1467)--not a word explaining how a parvenu Lancastrian became a member of King Arthur's, er, King Edward's court until the fifth paragraph where we find: "Like his father Woodville opposed the Yorkists in 1460â€"61, was allowed to submit in 1461 once the Lancastrian cause was irredeemably lost, and was recognized as Lord Scales. What transformed his career, like that of the whole family, was his sister's marriage to Edward IV in 1464."

This two-sentence summary (which perhaps explains why the dead Grey wasn't pardoned--he couldn't "submit") reflects the conventional wisdom--the Woodvilles were nobodies until the "May marriage" and gives no indication of the grants of land that you mentioned. Hicks makes some interesting remarks about Woodville as a "hardheaded businessman" who "was quite prepared to pursue speculative claims at the expense of others" and "*blackmailed* Maud, Lady Willoughby, into surrendering part of her inheritance in return for immunity for her Lancastrian husband, Sir Gervase Clifton." Though the article is predictably anti-Richard, it's surprisingly objective about Anthony Woodville though it ends up supporting the favorable depiction of him that we find in the commentators.

It's not helpful in answering our question, though--why the pardon and the land grants three years before the "marriage" to EW? I also wonder why Sir John Grey fought at Second Albans but the Woodvilles apparently didn't though they fought at Towton a little over a month later.

I'm having "one of those days" in which everything happens except what's supposed to happen, so I need to pretend that this forum doesn't exist for the next five hours and get some editing done!

Carol

Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>  
> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>  
>
>
>
> Hi Hilary,
> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> >  
> > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > Paul
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> >
> > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
"Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> >  
> > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Hilary,
> > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > >  
> > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > >
> > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford

It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> Marie
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > >  
> > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > >  
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Hilary,
> > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > >  
> > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > >
> > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
Marie
P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>
> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>
> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > >  
> > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > >  
> > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > >
> > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.

It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> Marie
> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> >
> > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> >
> > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > >  
> > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Ha, ha, that will take the stuffing right out of you!

On Jul 7, 2013, at 4:10 PM, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian@...>> wrote:



That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.

It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> Marie
> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> >
> > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> >
> > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaý in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > ý
> > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > ý
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ýýý Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > ýýý
> > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ýýý
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
Marie



--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>
> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > Marie
> > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> >
> > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > >
> > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > >
> > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.

That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >
> > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > Marie
> > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > >
> > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Were the lad's peas soaked in curare and fired at an extraordinary velocity?

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen



 
Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.

That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >
> > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > Marie
> > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > >
> > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.àThen, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > à
> > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > à
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
Paul

On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
>
> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>>>
>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>>>
>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
>>>> Marie
>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>>>>
>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>>>>>
>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÂ Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>>>>>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen


Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
Paul

On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
>
> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>>>
>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>>>
>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
>>>> Marie
>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>>>>
>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>>>>>
>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting  the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>  From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÂ Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>>>>>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>  From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment....  shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>>         
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Still waiting for all the promised sex and violence.

According to James Frain, "the battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic, because if you fall off your horse you can't get up due to the armour and you get skewered".

Oh, dear.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>
> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
> Paul
>
> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> > Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
> >
> > That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> >> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> >> Marie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >>>
> >>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >>>
> >>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> >>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> >>>> Marie
> >>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> >>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> >>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> >>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting  the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> >>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> >>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> >>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>  From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>   
> >>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
> >>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> >>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>  From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >>>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment....  shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> >>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> >>>>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   
> >>>>>>>>         
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I'm sure you are all thrilled to know that next week we are getting the
firstof a two hour film in which Philippa Gregory "carefully leads us
through the real lives of the three women at the heart of her books"
with contributions from other authors and historians."
I wonder how mush nearer the real story she will get.
Not close at all is my guess.
[And why is the BBC pandering to this clear "buy my books" publicity?
Reminds me of the Lloyd Webber "come and see my shows" programmes, when
he went in search of 'stars" for his new productions, as if there aren't
enough talented actors and actresses out there looking for work already!
The photo of PG in Radio Times reminds me a bit of Lloyd Webber, in that
they both have inside out faces!!
Paul


On 09/07/2013 12:30, davidarayner wrote:
> Still waiting for all the promised sex and violence.
>
> According to James Frain, "the battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic, because if you fall off your horse you can't get up due to the armour and you get skewered".
>
> Oh, dear.
>
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
>> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>
>>
>> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
>> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
>> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
>> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
>> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
>> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
>> Paul
>>
>> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
>>> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
>>>
>>> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
>>>
>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
>>>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
>>>> Marie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
>>>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
>> used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
>>>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
>>>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
>>>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaà in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Â From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>> Â Â
>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
>>>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.Ã’â¬aà Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃ
>>>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Â From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Â Â
>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Just in case anyone who doesn't know the history of the period asks me questions/ makes statements to me based on their viewing of The White Queen. So I'm not completely bewildered.
Okay, so that's an excuse. I'm actually finding it quite fun now, in a ridiculous sort of way - until Richard is made to do something wicked that he didn't, I suppose. I'm more comfortable, actually, now I've seen how silly it is - surely no one over the age of 14 will take it seriously. Just look at how Elizabeth Woodville's magic works every time, for instance.
Marie


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
> Paul
>
> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> > Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
> >
> > That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> >> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> >> Marie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >>>
> >>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >>>
> >>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> >>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> >>>> Marie
> >>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> >>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> >>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> >>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> >>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> >>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> >>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
> >>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> >>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >>>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> >>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> >>>>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Have a care Paul! ..it costs a lot of money to have a face like that...it's called Botox...Im not sure what the procedure is called for the trout lip effect...maybe it is called just that..trout lip surgery. But it costs mega bucks... And this my friend is why PG will go on and on and on writing her ghastly books...she has got to get the money from somewhere because it is an ongoing business...:0/ Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>

> The photo of PG in Radio Times reminds me a bit of Lloyd Webber, in that
> they both have inside out faces!!
> Paul
>
>
> On 09/07/2013 12:30, davidarayner wrote:
> > Still waiting for all the promised sex and violence.
> >
> > According to James Frain, "the battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic, because if you fall off your horse you can't get up due to the armour and you get skewered".
> >
> > Oh, dear.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>
> >>
> >> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
> >> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
> >> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
> >> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
> >> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
> >> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> >>> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
> >>>
> >>> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> >>>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> >>>> Marie
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> >>>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> >> used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> >>>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> >>>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> >>>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> >>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> >>>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> >>>>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> >>>>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> Â From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>>> Â Â
> >>>>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>>> Â
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
> >>>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> >>>>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> Â From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Â Â
> >>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

It is either Botox and/or fillers. I had some "growths" removed between nose and lip. The deadening lasted for a while and I had a lip kind of like that. Also, I was unable to get a grasp on coffee cup or water glass, and dribbled for a few days. Yuck.....

On Jul 9, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Have a care Paul! ..it costs a lot of money to have a face like that...it's called Botox...Im not sure what the procedure is called for the trout lip effect...maybe it is called just that..trout lip surgery. But it costs mega bucks... And this my friend is why PG will go on and on and on writing her ghastly books...she has got to get the money from somewhere because it is an ongoing business...:0/ Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>

> The photo of PG in Radio Times reminds me a bit of Lloyd Webber, in that
> they both have inside out faces!!
> Paul
>
>
> On 09/07/2013 12:30, davidarayner wrote:
> > Still waiting for all the promised sex and violence.
> >
> > According to James Frain, "the battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic, because if you fall off your horse you can't get up due to the armour and you get skewered".
> >
> > Oh, dear.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>
> >>
> >> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
> >> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
> >> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
> >> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
> >> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
> >> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> >>> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
> >>>
> >>> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
> >>>
> >>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> >>>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> >>>> Marie
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> >>>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> >> used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> >>>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> >>>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> >>>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy grantingý the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> >>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> >>>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaýý in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> >>>>>>>>>> ýý
> >>>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> >>>>>>>>>> ýý
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> ý From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>>> ý ý
> >>>>>>>>>> ýý
> >>>>>>>>>> ý
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
> >>>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> >>>>>>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ýýýýýýý Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> >>>>>>>>>>> ýýýýýýý
> >>>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> ý From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ýýýýýýý
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment....ý shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carol
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ý ý
> >>>>>>>>>> ý ý ý ý ý
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.

(REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)

I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.

The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.

And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.

I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.

And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)

~Weds


----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >
> > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > Marie
> > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > >
> > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Some of the better, older cast yes.  Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
 
That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
 
 


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen


 

Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.

(REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)

I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.

The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.

And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.

I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.

And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)

~Weds

----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> >
> > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > Marie
> > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > >
> > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.àThen, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > à
> > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > à
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

There aren't nearly enough horizontal scenes.

I fear the only one we'll get from here on is Warwick thrashing around on the ground at Barnet under the weight of his reinforced lead armour while the enemy pikemen skewer him repeatedly through the crotch joints.

Also, where the heck is Hastings? Edward's right-hand man throughout his reign is nowhere to be seen, which means his execution/murder by Richard (if its shown at all) will not have the impact it needs to have, because WOTR virgins won't know who he is.

Presumably Thomas Stanley will only be introduced as MB's third/fourth husband, thus failing to celebrate his unblemished record of arriving just too late to take part in any battle.

Another character I'd have brought in earlier is John Howard, who I happen to think had a huge role in the events of 1483, but only understandable if you know how Edward bilked him of the Norfolk estates despite years of loyal service.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
>
> (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
>
> I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
>
> The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
>
> And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
>
> I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
>
> And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> ----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > >
> > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > Marie
> > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > >
> > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Good point about Warwick, David. Now he's beheaded Herbert & turned into a monster we are expected to rejoice as he gets his come-uppance, hmm?
The current husband of the MB character only gets mentioned in Wikipedia in articles about his famous wife & his father. I gather they married on 03/01/1462. & the dispensation arrived on 06/04, another thing to pray about. The MB article claims they enjoyed a fairly long & harmonious marital relationship but that her estates were their main source of income. Apart from her son was any man ever interested in MB the real woman for any other reason than her money?
Now, who might be willing to write a respectable article about poor Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1462)?
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:00, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

> There aren't nearly enough horizontal scenes.
>
> I fear the only one we'll get from here on is Warwick thrashing around on the ground at Barnet under the weight of his reinforced lead armour while the enemy pikemen skewer him repeatedly through the crotch joints.
>
> Also, where the heck is Hastings? Edward's right-hand man throughout his reign is nowhere to be seen, which means his execution/murder by Richard (if its shown at all) will not have the impact it needs to have, because WOTR virgins won't know who he is.
>
> Presumably Thomas Stanley will only be introduced as MB's third/fourth husband, thus failing to celebrate his unblemished record of arriving just too late to take part in any battle.
>
> Another character I'd have brought in earlier is John Howard, who I happen to think had a huge role in the events of 1483, but only understandable if you know how Edward bilked him of the Norfolk estates despite years of loyal service.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> >
> > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> >
> > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> >
> > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> >
> > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> >
> > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> >
> > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > ----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > >
> > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

I have just watched Sunday's episode on iplayer. I was nearly shouting at the end. You are right Marie, if someone discussed it with you and you had not watched it, you would be completely bewildered.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Just in case anyone who doesn't know the history of the period asks me questions/ makes statements to me based on their viewing of The White Queen. So I'm not completely bewildered.
> Okay, so that's an excuse. I'm actually finding it quite fun now, in a ridiculous sort of way - until Richard is made to do something wicked that he didn't, I suppose. I'm more comfortable, actually, now I've seen how silly it is - surely no one over the age of 14 will take it seriously. Just look at how Elizabeth Woodville's magic works every time, for instance.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
> > lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
> > take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
> > period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
> > onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
> > exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
> > > Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
> > >
> > > That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > >> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > >> Marie
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > >>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > >>>> Marie
> > >>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > >>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > >>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > >>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > >>>>>> Marie
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > >>>>>>> Marie
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > >>>>>>>> Â
> > >>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > >>>>>>>> Â
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> ________________________________
> > >>>>>>>> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > >>>>>>>> To:
> > >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Â
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
> > >>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > >>>>>>>> Marie
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > >>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> > >>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > >>>>>>>>> To:
> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ÂÂ
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > >>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Paul
> > >>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Carol
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Some of the better, older cast yes.  Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
>  
> That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>
>  
>
> Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
>
> (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
>
> I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
>
> The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
>
> And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
>
> I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
>
> And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
>
> ~Weds
>
> ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > >
> > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > Marie
> > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > >
> > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Now this was my understanding of the Stafford marriage from reading The Kings Mother by Jones and Underwood. MB and Stafford travelled around a lot together which implies that they at least got on...and Stafford assisted her in her keeping in touch with her son. Sounds as he was a kind and caring husband. Yes..poor Sir Henry indeed....well it's always the same old same old with PG....all men are weak, daft, obnoxious while women being the brainy sex outwit them at every turn. They achieve this by merely sticking pins into little dolly thingies....Im so looking forward to when the dragon makes an appearance....John Hurt does the VoiceOver...oh wait! that's MerlIn isn't it...?

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:


The MB article claims they enjoyed a fairly long & harmonious marital relationship but that her estates were their main source of income. Apart from her son was any man ever interested in MB the real woman for any other reason than her money?
> Now, who might be willing to write a respectable article about poor Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1462)?
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:00, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > There aren't nearly enough horizontal scenes.
> >
> > I fear the only one we'll get from here on is Warwick thrashing around on the ground at Barnet under the weight of his reinforced lead armour while the enemy pikemen skewer him repeatedly through the crotch joints.
> >
> > Also, where the heck is Hastings? Edward's right-hand man throughout his reign is nowhere to be seen, which means his execution/murder by Richard (if its shown at all) will not have the impact it needs to have, because WOTR virgins won't know who he is.
> >
> > Presumably Thomas Stanley will only be introduced as MB's third/fourth husband, thus failing to celebrate his unblemished record of arriving just too late to take part in any battle.
> >
> > Another character I'd have brought in earlier is John Howard, who I happen to think had a huge role in the events of 1483, but only understandable if you know how Edward bilked him of the Norfolk estates despite years of loyal service.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > >
> > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > >
> > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > >
> > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > >
> > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > >
> > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > >
> > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > ----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> >
> > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> >
> > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> >
> > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> >
> > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> >
> > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> >
> > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> >
> > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > >
> > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÂ Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ
> > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Why not have Merlin, everyone else is there......hmmmmm, maybe a Hobbitt, oh no, that is not historically accurate, drat, neither is the WQ!

On Jul 9, 2013, at 4:27 PM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Now this was my understanding of the Stafford marriage from reading The Kings Mother by Jones and Underwood. MB and Stafford travelled around a lot together which implies that they at least got on...and Stafford assisted her in her keeping in touch with her son. Sounds as he was a kind and caring husband. Yes..poor Sir Henry indeed....well it's always the same old same old with PG....all men are weak, daft, obnoxious while women being the brainy sex outwit them at every turn. They achieve this by merely sticking pins into little dolly thingies....Im so looking forward to when the dragon makes an appearance....John Hurt does the VoiceOver...oh wait! that's MerlIn isn't it...?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:


The MB article claims they enjoyed a fairly long & harmonious marital relationship but that her estates were their main source of income. Apart from her son was any man ever interested in MB the real woman for any other reason than her money?
> Now, who might be willing to write a respectable article about poor Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1462)?
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:00, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > There aren't nearly enough horizontal scenes.
> >
> > I fear the only one we'll get from here on is Warwick thrashing around on the ground at Barnet under the weight of his reinforced lead armour while the enemy pikemen skewer him repeatedly through the crotch joints.
> >
> > Also, where the heck is Hastings? Edward's right-hand man throughout his reign is nowhere to be seen, which means his execution/murder by Richard (if its shown at all) will not have the impact it needs to have, because WOTR virgins won't know who he is.
> >
> > Presumably Thomas Stanley will only be introduced as MB's third/fourth husband, thus failing to celebrate his unblemished record of arriving just too late to take part in any battle.
> >
> > Another character I'd have brought in earlier is John Howard, who I happen to think had a huge role in the events of 1483, but only understandable if you know how Edward bilked him of the Norfolk estates despite years of loyal service.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > >
> > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > >
> > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > >
> > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > >
> > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > >
> > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > >
> > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > ----In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ýý Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > ýý
> > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ýý
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I have this feeling that she will just ignore Hasting's execution, or I suppose she could put him in as just Richard's friend and ignore his friendship with Edward. Anything could happen.

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> There aren't nearly enough horizontal scenes.
>
> I fear the only one we'll get from here on is Warwick thrashing around on the ground at Barnet under the weight of his reinforced lead armour while the enemy pikemen skewer him repeatedly through the crotch joints.
>
> Also, where the heck is Hastings? Edward's right-hand man throughout his reign is nowhere to be seen, which means his execution/murder by Richard (if its shown at all) will not have the impact it needs to have, because WOTR virgins won't know who he is.
>
> Presumably Thomas Stanley will only be introduced as MB's third/fourth husband, thus failing to celebrate his unblemished record of arriving just too late to take part in any battle.
>
> Another character I'd have brought in earlier is John Howard, who I happen to think had a huge role in the events of 1483, but only understandable if you know how Edward bilked him of the Norfolk estates despite years of loyal service.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> >
> > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> >
> > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> >
> > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> >
> > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> >
> > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> >
> > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > ----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > >
> > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > >
> > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Poor chap doesn't have a DNB.

Buckingham's Retinue has this:

http://www.bucks-retinue.org.uk/content/view/302/330/

but ers in calling him "Lord" Henry.

He didn't have a beard, otherwise everyone would have called him a girly.



--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Good point about Warwick, David. Now he's beheaded Herbert & turned into a monster we are expected to rejoice as he gets his come-uppance, hmm?
> The current husband of the MB character only gets mentioned in Wikipedia in articles about his famous wife & his father. I gather they married on 03/01/1462. & the dispensation arrived on 06/04, another thing to pray about. The MB article claims they enjoyed a fairly long & harmonious marital relationship but that her estates were their main source of income. Apart from her son was any man ever interested in MB the real woman for any other reason than her money?
> Now, who might be willing to write a respectable article about poor Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1462)?
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 20:00, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> > There aren't nearly enough horizontal scenes.
> >
> > I fear the only one we'll get from here on is Warwick thrashing around on the ground at Barnet under the weight of his reinforced lead armour while the enemy pikemen skewer him repeatedly through the crotch joints.
> >
> > Also, where the heck is Hastings? Edward's right-hand man throughout his reign is nowhere to be seen, which means his execution/murder by Richard (if its shown at all) will not have the impact it needs to have, because WOTR virgins won't know who he is.
> >
> > Presumably Thomas Stanley will only be introduced as MB's third/fourth husband, thus failing to celebrate his unblemished record of arriving just too late to take part in any battle.
> >
> > Another character I'd have brought in earlier is John Howard, who I happen to think had a huge role in the events of 1483, but only understandable if you know how Edward bilked him of the Norfolk estates despite years of loyal service.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > >
> > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > >
> > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > >
> > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > >
> > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > >
> > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > >
> > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > >
> > > ----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
Elaine

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > >
> > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > >
> > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > >
> > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > >
> > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > >
> > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > >
> > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > >
> > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Don't worry; there's no way Warwick will catch them wearing his lead armour.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > >
> > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > >
> > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > >
> > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > >
> > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > >
> > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > >
> > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > >
> > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
> > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462. Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÂÂ
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm watching because it's fun. There's a point where the scholar in me shut down, and my sense of humor about the absurdity we're seeing took over.

Forgive me, I'm weird. I'll likely lose my sense of humor once Richard of Gloucester is allowed a larger role and they twist everything about him *but* his spine.

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
> Paul

Whilst pregnant too!

Maybe they didn't have it in the budget to show the boat waiting for her on the Thames?

All I could think when the guard was fiddling with the bolt on...whatever gate that was supposed to be...was, "That's not period." It looked awfully shiny for iron too, but I'm not going back to see whether I've misjudged it.

~Weds


--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> Jan.

Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.

 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen

 

Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
Elaine

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > >
> > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > >
> > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > >
> > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > >
> > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > >
> > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > >
> > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > >
> > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
got
> > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaà in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.Ã’â¬aà Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

ooh you are awful! :-)
I wonder if her ally in trashing Richard, Starkey, will suddenly do an
about face when he sees her trashing his beloved Elizabeth Tudor?
Paul

On 09/07/2013 18:14, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> Have a care Paul! ..it costs a lot of money to have a face like that...it's called Botox...Im not sure what the procedure is called for the trout lip effect...maybe it is called just that..trout lip surgery. But it costs mega bucks... And this my friend is why PG will go on and on and on writing her ghastly books...she has got to get the money from somewhere because it is an ongoing business...:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> The photo of PG in Radio Times reminds me a bit of Lloyd Webber, in that
>> they both have inside out faces!!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 09/07/2013 12:30, davidarayner wrote:
>>> Still waiting for all the promised sex and violence.
>>>
>>> According to James Frain, "the battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic, because if you fall off your horse you can't get up due to the armour and you get skewered".
>>>
>>> Oh, dear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html
>>>
>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>> It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
>>>> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
>>>> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
>>>> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
>>>> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
>>>> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
>>>>> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
>>>>>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
>>>>>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
>>>> used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
>>>>>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
>>>>>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
>>>>>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
>>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaà in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Â From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
>>>>>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.Ã’â¬aà Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Â From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â
>>>>>>>>>>>> Â Â Â Â Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Caught one scene that had King Edward leaning out a window screaming
down at his brother George and Warwick! So much like the real man, NOT!
Paul

On 09/07/2013 18:55, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
>
> (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
>
> I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
>
> The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
>
> And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
>
> I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
>
> And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> ----In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>>>
>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>>>
>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
>>>> Marie
>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>>>>
>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>>>>>
>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÂ Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>>>>>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Starkey does not like women 'historians' - full stop. So he must already be bristling at her 'success'. He could end up being quite an ally:)



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 11:07
Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen


ooh you are awful! :-)
I wonder if her ally in trashing Richard, Starkey, will suddenly do an
about face when he sees her trashing his beloved Elizabeth Tudor?
Paul

On 09/07/2013 18:14, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> Have a care Paul! ..it costs a lot of money to have a face like that...it's called Botox...Im not sure what the procedure is called for the trout lip effect...maybe it is called just that..trout lip surgery.  But it costs mega bucks... And this my friend is why PG will go on and on and on writing her ghastly books...she has got to get the money from somewhere because it is an ongoing business...:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> The photo of PG in Radio Times reminds me a bit of Lloyd Webber, in that
>> they both have inside out faces!!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 09/07/2013 12:30, davidarayner wrote:
>>> Still waiting for all the promised sex and violence.
>>>
>>> According to James Frain, "the battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic, because if you fall off your horse you can't get up due to the armour and you get skewered".
>>>
>>> Oh, dear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html
>>>
>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>> It's like a horrible drug, Paul. I managed half of Ep 4 last night and just had to give up. I'm actually waiting for Richard to say something. I think he's had two sentences of dialogue in the whole thing so far - and it did sound a bit Welsh. At least they didn't make M of A into a pantomime witch; they made her quite beautiful, which she was 'in a dark sort of way'. But then I only watched half of it.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>    From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 9:25
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Why are you still watching this nonsense? Like the 2 million viwers it
>>>> lost between epsiode 1 and 2 I have given up. My blood pressure won't
>>>> take the historical errors, the crass dialogue, the ghastly out of
>>>> period, pantomime costumes, the dreadful acting, and the insults poured
>>>> onto some of my favourite people in one of the most thrilling and
>>>> exciting - apart from in WQ - periods in history.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 08/07/2013 22:14, davidarayner wrote:
>>>>> Apparently not: the seven year old Prince of Wales personally executed Sir Thomas Kyriel & William Bonville with his pea-shooter after 2nd St Albans.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what it said in the last episode so it must be correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>> Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
>>>>>> And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>>>> That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
>>>>>>>> Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>> P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I got
>>>>    used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
>>>>>>>> Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
>>>>>>>>>> "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
>>>>>>>>>> So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting  the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
>>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaà in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>> It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>   From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Â
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hilary,
>>>>>>>>>>>> The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.Ã’â¬aà Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another 'good' moment....  shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol responds:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>         Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>  
>
> Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > >
> > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > >
> > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > >
> > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > >
> > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > >
> > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > >
> > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > >
> > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
> got
> > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÆ'‚Â Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

They don't have much history now, and the exciting scenes might keep them glued to the screen. It really is so sad to waste a great historic story, without embellishment, or what did she say, embroidery.


On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
>
> ý
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
> ý
>
> Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> Elaine
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > >
> > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > >
> > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > >
> > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > >
> > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > >
> > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > >
> > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > >
> > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
> got
> > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaýýýýý in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýý Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

My real worry is that they haven't got to Richard yet - just wait! It was interesting that in his interview, our actor said that he had some stressful moments with the rest of the cast. Perhaps that's because he'd researched his part, which he clearly had, but wasn't allowed to play it as he should have done.?
 
Like you, I find it amazing that Frain manages to over-ride it all; it shows his quality and charisma.
As for charisma, do they not understand that's the key to Edward? Sewell had it in bucketloads in Charles II. Perhaps they should have put him in a fair wig to show how it's done?
 
But it is truly awful - and awful that something so awful should be lining PG's pockets. 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 14:32
Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen


 

Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the
scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
>
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>  
>
> Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> >
> > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > >
> > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > >
> > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > >
> > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > >
> > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > >
> > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > >
> > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > >
> > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
> got
> > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to JacquettaÃ’â¬a in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

We can but hope that some of them may be interested enough to ask questions...but with the magic they may well think it's merely some kind of legend along the line of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table or Robin Hood...They may even think the Panto season has arrived early.

As it ends with Bosworth...it will not show EW ending up in Bermondsey Abbey with only one pair of shoes to her name....Still with PG writing anything is possible and she could magic herself out of there abracadabra while sticking pins into a manikin of her ungrateful son-in-law who has a serious attitude problem, zooming away on her broomstick....OMG...she may even be able to wring a second series out....Eileen


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> They don't have much history now, and the exciting scenes might keep them glued to the screen. It really is so sad to waste a great historic story, without embellishment, or what did she say, embroidery.
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
> >
> > Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > > >
> > > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Weds
> > > > >
> > > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
> > got
> > > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquetta in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÆ'‚Â Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚Â
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So, PG may be singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"....

On Jul 10, 2013, at 10:32 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



We can but hope that some of them may be interested enough to ask questions...but with the magic they may well think it's merely some kind of legend along the line of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table or Robin Hood...They may even think the Panto season has arrived early.

As it ends with Bosworth...it will not show EW ending up in Bermondsey Abbey with only one pair of shoes to her name....Still with PG writing anything is possible and she could magic herself out of there abracadabra while sticking pins into a manikin of her ungrateful son-in-law who has a serious attitude problem, zooming away on her broomstick....OMG...she may even be able to wring a second series out....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> They don't have much history now, and the exciting scenes might keep them glued to the screen. It really is so sad to waste a great historic story, without embellishment, or what did she say, embroidery.
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
> >
> > ý
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> > ý
> >
> > Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > > >
> > > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Weds
> > > > >
> > > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
> > got
> > > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to Jacquettaýýýýý in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýý Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýý
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You have to admire the woman - to write book after book of 'historical' drivel, be able to market it successfully, to have TV series and a film made of said drivel and make millions from it - shows her entrepreneurial drive.  I just wish she would stop describing herself as a historian.......


________________________________
Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:



So, PG may be singing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"....

On Jul 10, 2013, at 10:32 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



We can but hope that some of them may be interested enough to ask questions...but with the magic they may well think it's merely some kind of legend along the line of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table or Robin Hood...They may even think the Panto season has arrived early.

As it ends with Bosworth...it will not show EW ending up in Bermondsey Abbey with only one pair of shoes to her name....Still with PG writing anything is possible and she could magic herself out of there abracadabra while sticking pins into a manikin of her ungrateful son-in-law who has a serious attitude problem, zooming away on her broomstick....OMG...she may even be able to wring a second series out....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> They don't have much history now, and the exciting scenes might keep them glued to the screen. It really is so sad to waste a great historic story, without embellishment, or what did she say, embroidery.
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2013, at 8:32 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the
scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
> >
> > Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > > >
> > > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Weds
> > > > >
> > > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit
her. I
> > got
> > > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to JacquettaÃ’â¬a in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm worried too. It seems to me that Anne is set to be so obsessed with the idea of becoming queen that she will put up with any vile husband she thinks can get a crown put on his head; we're about to see her choose to follow the Lancastrians to Tewkesbury rather than take sanctuary with her mother, even though in reality her mother's ship simply fetched up on another part of the coast and Anne was therefore separated from her by circumstance. Philippa Gregory's piece in the Radio Times a couple of weeks back indicates that she believes her version is fact, and she has probably drawn conclusions from it about Anne's character - see her trying on Isabel's coronation gown, for instance. So what does this bode for her relationship with Richard?
Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> My real worry is that they haven't got to Richard yet - just wait! It was interesting that in his interview, our actor said that he had some stressful moments with the rest of the cast. Perhaps that's because he'd researched his part, which he clearly had, but wasn't allowed to play it as he should have done.?
>  
> Like you, I find it amazing that Frain manages to over-ride it all; it shows his quality and charisma.
> As for charisma, do they not understand that's the key to Edward? Sewell had it in bucketloads in Charles II. Perhaps they should have put him in a fair wig to show how it's done?
>  
> But it is truly awful - and awful that something so awful should be lining PG's pockets. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 14:32
> Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
>
>
>  
>
> Oh Give-Me-Strength!...as I was only paying half attention I did not realise that EW and children were leaving the Tower to make their way to the Abbey....but Why? Why have they seen fit to alter the well known facts of the story. Does it make it more exciting...No!....Is is easier to portray...No!...It is just sloppy and quite honestly a load of old cobblers. I really cannot stand it much longer. The magic, the really crappy costumes, the poor script, the rubbish locations that has Westminster Palace looking like a Victorian Peek Frean Biscuit factory (I expected to see the clog wearing workers pouring out at any time)....and now the best actor's imminent departure....Its crap, crap, crap....Forget the water board torture...lock someone up and force them to watch this drivel on a loop..you really could not make it up..Its being shown at the wrong time too so as you are conned into thinking its adult viewing...when simply cutting out a few of the
> scenes, such as the baby head dangling from between EW thighs and Anne Neville getting bedded scene, show it at 4.30ish in the afternoon where it will appeal to the audience it is most suited to 10 to 13 years old girls and bobs your uncle. Alright I realise it will give those of that age group a misguided history 'lesson' but hey, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Eileen :0/
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Well as you would have to walk through the streets of London and then several miles in the open country to be met by the vandals at Westminster Gate she would have been fit indeed. Nah, they sent her in the royal barge! Mind you she should be grateful, most of her grandson's women travelled the other way.
> >
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 23:40
> > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> >
> >  
> >
> > Yes, and don't forget heavily pregnant.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And has anybody tried running from the Tower to Westminster with a young family in tow to gain sanctuary? Let alone along a medieval street with all that muck in the dark?
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On 9 Jul 2013, at 22:21, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is appalling. Henry Tudor learning to fight!! Edward attacked by Warwick just outside London!! Well I suppose John Neville hasn't made an appearance in previous episodes so it would have been a bit difficult to put him in this one. EW alone with her children, no ladies to wait on her, unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the better, older cast yes. Poor Michael Maloney, relegated to keep saying 'Margaret, calm down'. And the lovely Juliet Aubrey, fanastic as Dorothea in 'Middlemarch'. Such a waste. No, sorry but in the 'Kingmaker's Daughter' Anne is victim, victim, victim, whilst Richard of course commits incest with his niece.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's how PG makes her money and gets that 'look'..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 18:55
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Villains delegate only the little things to his/her minions. The villain always offs his/her enemies his/herself.
> > > > >
> > > > > (REFERENCES: see all seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm awarding five points for having MB and her long-suffering husband have a conversation that added dimension to the both characters. I'm taking two of those points back because that's the only thing the dialogue did. You could excise it from the script and nothing would change.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fangirl in me is also miffed that while Richard had one lines in the fourth episode, the camera was on someone else when he spoke. That's just rude.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Anne's character had better change from this point onward. After the "you just lie there" scene it's no longer acceptable for her to wander about with a deer-stuck-in-the-headlights expression.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think the cast in this mess are all acting their hearts out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And oh, PG, thanks for edumacating me about "sanctuary" being located in an abbey's crypt, and EW gave birth standing up. (I guess you can only have so many horizontal scenes per 110 pages of teleplay.)
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Weds
> > > > >
> > > > > ----In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just seen the latest episode (I watch a recording when no one else is in - guilty secret), and I see what you mean. And Jacquetta Woodville's witchcraft accusation has also been pushed forward to 1470 so that the threat of Margaret of Anjou's displeasure can get her off.
> > > > > > And doesn't anybody in PG world ever employ an executioner? Have they no ability to delegate?
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's nothing: the latest episode has William Herbert running around taking charge of Wee Harry a whole year after losing his head.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's no wonder Warwick ended up as he did - he had to hack a man's head off twice before he'd stay down...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's right. Edward had given him the lordship of Richmond, which is presumably how PG came to claim that Edward made him Earl of Richmond. PG gets very easily confused, doesn't she, seemingly also confusing Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, with William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, with whom Henry Tudor was really living in the 1460s.
> > > > > > > > Also, the idea of a highly intelligent and religious woman like Margaret Beaufort complaining because her mother hadn't let her marry her late husband's brother! Doesn't PG know anything about these matters?
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > P. S. Re the BBC wardrobe dept's excuses for the costumes and hairstyles. Their excuse for dispensing with headdresses seems rather odd, doesn't it - ie that they didn't want anything that obscured the actresses' faces? Because 15thC headdresses did not obscure the face, and the English styles of the 1460s-1480s were quite neat. On the other hand, the 14thC-inspired hanging loops of hair all over the cheeks that they have gone for instead do exactly that. I blame the move to Manchester. Great idea in many ways - too many things are kept in London - but never let a Manchester/NW hairdresser near your head. I say this as someone who has lived near Manchester for nigh on 30 years. They have an aesthetic I long ago labelled "Manchester grunge". The golden rule is fringe in the eyes, hair longest round the face, and all straightened to within an inch of its life. When my mother was alive I used to get my hair cut when I went south to visit her. I
> > got
> > > > > used to seeing the poor NW newsreaders and weather ladies being pushed out with lank hair and oily-looking faces (another NW must-have), but it is one step further altogether watching 15th century court ladies being subjected to Manchester grunge. Especially when they combine it with headdresses that were designed to complement an off-the-face look, it is just hideous.
> > > > > > > > Anyway, that's my rant about Manchester grunge out of the way - apologies to any NW English hairdressers reading this: I'm sure you're an exception. I have an near-exception who cuts my hair now (she still tries to insist I have a fringe in my eyes, but she's otherwise okay).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Browsing VCH on Richmond it seems that Clarence already held two thirds of the honour, with the reversion refering only to the other third held by Jaquetta in dower:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64709&strquery=bedford
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was standard practice for a widow to hold a third of her husbands lands after his death; Richmond was such a large honour that is was worth dividing into thirds rather than being placed wholy in or out of her dower portion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've just checked Edward's 1461 confirmation of the grant of the Richmond lands to Jacquetta. It was a confirmation of her dower lands, and was therefore for the term of her life only:
> > > > > > > > > > "Grant and confirmation to Richard Wydewyll, lord Ryvers, and Jaquetta, duchess of Bedford, his wife, for the life of the latter of the dower assigned to her on the death of John, late duke of Bedford, her husband..."
> > > > > > > > > > So there is nothing at all sinister about Edward granting the reversion of these lands to Clarence. If you check the CPR for Henry VII's reign, for instance, you will see he was also busy granting the reversions of the various properties that Cecily held in dower.
> > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry if this observation is out of date, but I've been away. It is more likely that Jacquetta held the lands for life only, but you would need to check that out.
> > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes he reverses his earlier decision and gives them to Clarence on her death (I do apologise the date was 20 Sep 1462 and there's another entry later as well - I was rushing off to France, my excuse!). Which of course would mean that the Woodville's would lose their 'inheritance'. Edward gave them back to JacquettaÃÆ'‚ in 1461. I thought you might know why he did made this reversion; after all he could just have done it when Jacquetta died. It comes across as a sort of 'punishment'; after all why give them back to her and then take them away again which was bound to cause bad feeling with the Woodville clan and against Clarence? When you look at the list in 1461 it is huge, as you would expect given that Bedford was H5's brother. Humphrey of Gloucester's lands seem to have been dispersed fairly thinly through a number of people.
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > > > It might simply have been that the logic was that Clarence was the 'second brother' of the King, as Bedford had been after the death of Thomas of Clarence, and was therefore entitled to them. But why make such a provocative reversion then, and not in 1461? I wouldn't have though a thirteen year old Clarence was yet astute enough to be chasing an inheritance?
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013, 13:08
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hilary,
> > > > > > > > > > > > The grant Clarence was made in September 1462 was that of the lordship of Richmond, and included the REVERSION of those lands belonging to the lordship that were currently held by Jacquetta Woodville. All that means is that they would revert to him on her death. I don't know how Jacquetta had come by them, but that is an interesting question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carol, I couldn't find the other thread about the Woodvilles and Jacquetta's lands. However, Edward, having given them back to her in Dec 1461 gave Antony some more land in May 1462.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Then, in December 1462 he took them all back again and gave them to Clarence. I wonder why? And is this the beginning of the bad feelings for Clarence - that's even before he and Warwick gave Rivers senior the chop.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Am still trying to find you a link that will take you straight to CPR for Edward IV (1461) rather than those of random monarchs. H.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 23:21
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richmond and the White Queen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another 'good' moment.... shortly after giving birth to Elizabeth and a quick dissolve Queen Elizabeth suddenly has 3 daughters, and Elizabeth of York is already quite tall and walking on her own. Straight after we see MB visiting her son Henry, who is exactly the same size he was at the start of the episode!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Was nobody paying attention when they were making this? Clearly not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wait. Henry is a child (how old?) and Richard is a grown man? They were just four years and a few months apart.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If only PG and Amy License would trade names so I could make a pun on "poetic License."
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>