The Real White Queen??
The Real White Queen??
2013-07-24 22:36:02
Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-24 23:09:56
What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>
She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-24 23:54:16
I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
Tamara
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
>
> She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> >
>
Tamara
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
>
> She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> >
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-24 23:57:33
And, you would have known what you were getting into!
On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
Tamara
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
>
> She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> >
>
On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
Tamara
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
>
> She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> >
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 03:50:29
I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?
Tamara
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
> >
> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?
Tamara
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
> >
> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 07:28:54
I don't know whether it's ever been mentioned on here but there is a book by Anne O'Brien called 'The Virgin Widow' about Anne. It has the odd steretypical character and George slaps his thigh a bit, but it is a mile better than the Kingmaker's Daughter. O'Brien (although she has a degree in History) does not claim to be a historian. She writes romances and sticks to it and like Cartland does that job well without pretentions.
I reckon PG has lost touch with Earth. H.
________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 3:50
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?
Tamara
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
> >
> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish
to be broadcast.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I reckon PG has lost touch with Earth. H.
________________________________
From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 3:50
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?
Tamara
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of the Earldom of Richmond?
> >
> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these "negotiations" about?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish
to be broadcast.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 10:01:08
Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
Liz
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
Subject: The Real White Queen??
Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be
broadcast.
Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
Liz
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
Subject: The Real White Queen??
Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be
broadcast.
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 10:21:20
Other gems from TRWQ:
Anne N was afraid of EW, possibly suspecting her of witchcraft, & so did not go to court...
Anne N pushed RGl to take power in April/June1483....
Anne N didn't go south for EV's coronation because she knew he wouldn't be crowned....
EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son....
MB & EW negotiated secretly to marry EOY to HT & recruited Buckingham but deep down they were all using each other for their own different aims.....
MB married Stanley T because she respected a man as devious as she herself was...
The autumn rebellion of 1483 would have succeeded if it hadn't rained so hard....
EW left sanctuary because she was 15 years older than R3 & reckoned he might be around a long time (we wish).....
There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
Buckingham & Stanley had access to the Tower....
EW may have supported the idea of R3 marrying EOY...
There were very few Woodville supporters in HT's army....did EW want R3 to win?
HT waited 5 months before marrying EOY maybe to see if she was pregnant by R3 first....
They say you couldn't make this stuff up but plainly several people have.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:01, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
> Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
>
> Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
>
> Liz
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
> Subject: The Real White Queen??
>
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be
> broadcast.
>
>
>
>
Anne N was afraid of EW, possibly suspecting her of witchcraft, & so did not go to court...
Anne N pushed RGl to take power in April/June1483....
Anne N didn't go south for EV's coronation because she knew he wouldn't be crowned....
EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son....
MB & EW negotiated secretly to marry EOY to HT & recruited Buckingham but deep down they were all using each other for their own different aims.....
MB married Stanley T because she respected a man as devious as she herself was...
The autumn rebellion of 1483 would have succeeded if it hadn't rained so hard....
EW left sanctuary because she was 15 years older than R3 & reckoned he might be around a long time (we wish).....
There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
Buckingham & Stanley had access to the Tower....
EW may have supported the idea of R3 marrying EOY...
There were very few Woodville supporters in HT's army....did EW want R3 to win?
HT waited 5 months before marrying EOY maybe to see if she was pregnant by R3 first....
They say you couldn't make this stuff up but plainly several people have.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:01, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
> Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
>
> Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
>
> Liz
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
> Subject: The Real White Queen??
>
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be
> broadcast.
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 10:35:45
"EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
Sounds like she's getting confused with the story of George substituting his son.
I'd laugh if I wasn't so angry because people WILL believe this shit. I always thought PG was a useless writer but now I have nothing but contempt for her.
Liz
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 10:21
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
Other gems from TRWQ:
Anne N was afraid of EW, possibly suspecting her of witchcraft, & so did not go to court...
Anne N pushed RGl to take power in April/June1483....
Anne N didn't go south for EV's coronation because she knew he wouldn't be crowned....
EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son....
MB & EW negotiated secretly to marry EOY to HT & recruited Buckingham but deep down they were all using each other for their own different aims.....
MB married Stanley T because she respected a man as devious as she herself was...
The autumn rebellion of 1483 would have succeeded if it hadn't rained so hard....
EW left sanctuary because she was 15 years older than R3 & reckoned he might be around a long time (we wish).....
There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
Buckingham & Stanley had access to the Tower....
EW may have supported the idea of R3 marrying EOY...
There were very few Woodville supporters in HT's army....did EW want R3 to win?
HT waited 5 months before marrying EOY maybe to see if she was pregnant by R3 first....
They say you couldn't make this stuff up but plainly several people have.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:01, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
>
> Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
>
> Liz
>
> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
> Subject: The Real White Queen??
>
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to
be
> broadcast.
>
>
>
>
Sounds like she's getting confused with the story of George substituting his son.
I'd laugh if I wasn't so angry because people WILL believe this shit. I always thought PG was a useless writer but now I have nothing but contempt for her.
Liz
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 10:21
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
Other gems from TRWQ:
Anne N was afraid of EW, possibly suspecting her of witchcraft, & so did not go to court...
Anne N pushed RGl to take power in April/June1483....
Anne N didn't go south for EV's coronation because she knew he wouldn't be crowned....
EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son....
MB & EW negotiated secretly to marry EOY to HT & recruited Buckingham but deep down they were all using each other for their own different aims.....
MB married Stanley T because she respected a man as devious as she herself was...
The autumn rebellion of 1483 would have succeeded if it hadn't rained so hard....
EW left sanctuary because she was 15 years older than R3 & reckoned he might be around a long time (we wish).....
There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
Buckingham & Stanley had access to the Tower....
EW may have supported the idea of R3 marrying EOY...
There were very few Woodville supporters in HT's army....did EW want R3 to win?
HT waited 5 months before marrying EOY maybe to see if she was pregnant by R3 first....
They say you couldn't make this stuff up but plainly several people have.
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:01, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
>
> Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
>
> Liz
>
> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
> Subject: The Real White Queen??
>
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to
be
> broadcast.
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 12:50:10
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
Really? That is in her novel, but as we all know there's not a single source which suggests it. And it was for me quite the absurdist ting in the novel. She grabs a yokel, dresses him up as RoY and gives him to Richard when he comes to collect him. He lives in the Tower with EV, his supposed brother (who in real life had visited court quite often), visited regularly by his uncle and other courtiers - and nobody notices he isn't RoY, doesn't have any table manners and can't read or write. Meanwhile Elizabeth smuggles the real RoY on to a Thames boat from a watergate in the abbey sanctuary/crypt, which she must have magicked up because Westminster Abbey isn't on the river.
Marie
>
> "EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
Really? That is in her novel, but as we all know there's not a single source which suggests it. And it was for me quite the absurdist ting in the novel. She grabs a yokel, dresses him up as RoY and gives him to Richard when he comes to collect him. He lives in the Tower with EV, his supposed brother (who in real life had visited court quite often), visited regularly by his uncle and other courtiers - and nobody notices he isn't RoY, doesn't have any table manners and can't read or write. Meanwhile Elizabeth smuggles the real RoY on to a Thames boat from a watergate in the abbey sanctuary/crypt, which she must have magicked up because Westminster Abbey isn't on the river.
Marie
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 13:54:44
I took notes but wasn't quick enough to get down who said what. There were some pretty shots of locations with Middleham in the snow & Woking, which was never mentioned as having a ruined palace during my growing up in Greater London.
Who needs historical fiction when you have historians?!
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Jul 2013, at 12:50, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > "EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
>
> Really? That is in her novel, but as we all know there's not a single source which suggests it. And it was for me quite the absurdist ting in the novel. She grabs a yokel, dresses him up as RoY and gives him to Richard when he comes to collect him. He lives in the Tower with EV, his supposed brother (who in real life had visited court quite often), visited regularly by his uncle and other courtiers - and nobody notices he isn't RoY, doesn't have any table manners and can't read or write. Meanwhile Elizabeth smuggles the real RoY on to a Thames boat from a watergate in the abbey sanctuary/crypt, which she must have magicked up because Westminster Abbey isn't on the river.
> Marie
>
>
Who needs historical fiction when you have historians?!
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 25 Jul 2013, at 12:50, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > "EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
>
> Really? That is in her novel, but as we all know there's not a single source which suggests it. And it was for me quite the absurdist ting in the novel. She grabs a yokel, dresses him up as RoY and gives him to Richard when he comes to collect him. He lives in the Tower with EV, his supposed brother (who in real life had visited court quite often), visited regularly by his uncle and other courtiers - and nobody notices he isn't RoY, doesn't have any table manners and can't read or write. Meanwhile Elizabeth smuggles the real RoY on to a Thames boat from a watergate in the abbey sanctuary/crypt, which she must have magicked up because Westminster Abbey isn't on the river.
> Marie
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 15:52:17
That's the trouble Liz, people will believe that it is true, especially as it is promoted as the "The Real White Queen". One of the other women "historians" kept going on about facts, believe me there were very few facts. I did have a bit of a laugh while watching it. My daughter rang through part of it so I missed some of it, I won't bother to re-watch it on iplayer.
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
>
>
> Â Sounds like she's getting confused with the story of George substituting his son.
>
> I'd laugh if I wasn't so angry because people WILL believe this shit. I always thought PG was a useless writer but now I have nothing but contempt for her.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 10:21
> Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
> Â
> Other gems from TRWQ:
> Anne N was afraid of EW, possibly suspecting her of witchcraft, & so did not go to court...
> Anne N pushed RGl to take power in April/June1483....
> Anne N didn't go south for EV's coronation because she knew he wouldn't be crowned....
> EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son....
> MB & EW negotiated secretly to marry EOY to HT & recruited Buckingham but deep down they were all using each other for their own different aims.....
> MB married Stanley T because she respected a man as devious as she herself was...
> The autumn rebellion of 1483 would have succeeded if it hadn't rained so hard....
> EW left sanctuary because she was 15 years older than R3 & reckoned he might be around a long time (we wish).....
> There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
> Buckingham & Stanley had access to the Tower....
> EW may have supported the idea of R3 marrying EOY...
> There were very few Woodville supporters in HT's army....did EW want R3 to win?
> HT waited 5 months before marrying EOY maybe to see if she was pregnant by R3 first....
>
> They say you couldn't make this stuff up but plainly several people have.
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:01, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
> >
> > Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
> > Subject: The Real White Queen??
> >
> >
> > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to
> be
> > broadcast.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> "EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son...."
>
>
> Â Sounds like she's getting confused with the story of George substituting his son.
>
> I'd laugh if I wasn't so angry because people WILL believe this shit. I always thought PG was a useless writer but now I have nothing but contempt for her.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 10:21
> Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
> Â
> Other gems from TRWQ:
> Anne N was afraid of EW, possibly suspecting her of witchcraft, & so did not go to court...
> Anne N pushed RGl to take power in April/June1483....
> Anne N didn't go south for EV's coronation because she knew he wouldn't be crowned....
> EW handed over a substitute, not ROY himself, when under pressure to release her second son....
> MB & EW negotiated secretly to marry EOY to HT & recruited Buckingham but deep down they were all using each other for their own different aims.....
> MB married Stanley T because she respected a man as devious as she herself was...
> The autumn rebellion of 1483 would have succeeded if it hadn't rained so hard....
> EW left sanctuary because she was 15 years older than R3 & reckoned he might be around a long time (we wish).....
> There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
> Buckingham & Stanley had access to the Tower....
> EW may have supported the idea of R3 marrying EOY...
> There were very few Woodville supporters in HT's army....did EW want R3 to win?
> HT waited 5 months before marrying EOY maybe to see if she was pregnant by R3 first....
>
> They say you couldn't make this stuff up but plainly several people have.
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:01, liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Didn't watch it thank God, I watched Una Stubbs on Who do you Think You Are. (which is a question we could well ask of _PG)
> >
> > Appalling, I thought PG said she was "pro Richard". God help us if she was anti.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:36
> > Subject: The Real White Queen??
> >
> >
> > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to
> be
> > broadcast.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 15:58:15
On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
> There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 16:02:49
davidarayner wrote:
"What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of
the Earldom of Richmond?
She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly
have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
"negotiations" about?"
Doug here:
Well, *if* we were discussing actual history, I'd say any "negotiations"
between MB and Richard would have been about exactly what would be required
of Henry, and MB, so that he could return to England and *not* be
immediately clapped in the Tower.
As it's PG, who knows?
Doug
>
> --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant,
>> not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill.
>> He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it.
>> No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese
>> Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she
>> says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward
>> violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no
>> mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen
>> Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised
>> to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG
>> ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at
>> Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is
>> appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
"What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration of
the Earldom of Richmond?
She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could hardly
have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
"negotiations" about?"
Doug here:
Well, *if* we were discussing actual history, I'd say any "negotiations"
between MB and Richard would have been about exactly what would be required
of Henry, and MB, so that he could return to England and *not* be
immediately clapped in the Tower.
As it's PG, who knows?
Doug
>
> --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>>
>> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant,
>> not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill.
>> He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it.
>> No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese
>> Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she
>> says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward
>> violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no
>> mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen
>> Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised
>> to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG
>> ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at
>> Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is
>> appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 16:08:33
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 16:26:10
Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 17:02:52
Step. Her daughter Raine was Diana's stepmother..
Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:26
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:26
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 17:02:55
Step-grandmother ie mother of her stepmother.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
> Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> maroonnavywhite wrote:
>
> "I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed
> a
> sneaking affection for her as I get older.
> There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the
> drag-queen
> rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
> was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
> no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
> respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar
> like
> PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
> intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that
> they
> don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
> If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
> instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
> by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
> pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
> ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
> workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
>
> Doug here:
> Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
> (well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
> interesting characters and a sense of humor.
> Doug
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>>
>>> Tamara
>>>
>>> --- In
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>>> >
>>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were
>>> > these
>>> > "negotiations" about?
>>> >
>>> > --- In
>>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't
>>> > > disappoint.
>>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because
>>> > > she
>>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for
>>> > > her
>>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then
>>> > > summarily
>>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
> Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> maroonnavywhite wrote:
>
> "I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed
> a
> sneaking affection for her as I get older.
> There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the
> drag-queen
> rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
> was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
> no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
> respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar
> like
> PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
> intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that
> they
> don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
> If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
> instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
> by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
> pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
> ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
> workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
>
> Doug here:
> Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
> (well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
> interesting characters and a sense of humor.
> Doug
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>>
>>> Tamara
>>>
>>> --- In
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>>> >
>>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were
>>> > these
>>> > "negotiations" about?
>>> >
>>> > --- In
>>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>,
>>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't
>>> > > disappoint.
>>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because
>>> > > she
>>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for
>>> > > her
>>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then
>>> > > summarily
>>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 17:10:29
Ah yes, the hated wicked step-mother!
On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Step. Her daughter Raine was Diana's stepmother..
Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:26
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com><mailto:destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>> wrote:
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
Step. Her daughter Raine was Diana's stepmother..
Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:26
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com><mailto:destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>> wrote:
maroonnavywhite wrote:
"I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
sneaking affection for her as I get older.
There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
Doug here:
Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
(well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
interesting characters and a sense of humor.
Doug
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@...<mailto:khafara@...>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
>> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
>> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
>> >
>> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
>> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
>> > "negotiations" about?
>> >
>> > --- In
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
>> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
>> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
>> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
>> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
>> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
>> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
>> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
>> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
>> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
>> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
>> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
>> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
>> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
>> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
>> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 20:56:30
What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor.
~Weds
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>
PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor.
~Weds
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint. Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 21:10:20
Acid Raine, I believe she called her.
Marie
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Ah yes, the hated wicked step-mother!
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Step. Her daughter Raine was Diana's stepmother..
>
> Liz
>
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:26
> Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
> Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com><mailto:destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>> wrote:
>
> maroonnavywhite wrote:
>
> "I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
> sneaking affection for her as I get older.
> There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
> rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
> was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
> no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
> respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
> PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
> intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
> don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
> If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
> instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
> by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
> pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
> ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
> workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
>
> Doug here:
> Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
> (well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
> interesting characters and a sense of humor.
> Doug
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
> >> <khafara@<mailto:khafara@>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
> >> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
> >>
> >> Tamara
> >>
> >> --- In
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
> >> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
> >> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
> >> >
> >> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
> >> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
> >> > "negotiations" about?
> >> >
> >> > --- In
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
> >> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
> >> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
> >> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
> >> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
> >> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
> >> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
> >> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
> >> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
> >> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
> >> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
> >> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
> >> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
> >> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
> >> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
> >> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marie
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Ah yes, the hated wicked step-mother!
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Step. Her daughter Raine was Diana's stepmother..
>
> Liz
>
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:26
> Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
> Wasn't she Princess Diana's grandmother?
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com><mailto:destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>> wrote:
>
> maroonnavywhite wrote:
>
> "I used to despise Cartland as a taste-free harridian, but I've developed a
> sneaking affection for her as I get older.
> There was an iron discipline and immense drive underneath all the drag-queen
> rouge and pink bonbons. I wouldn't have chosen the life she did, and she
> was inclined to fibs great and small, but there was a basic core of
> no-nonsense hypercompetence in her that apparently kept her focused. I can
> respect somebody like her more than I can respect a flabby-brained liar like
> PG who relies on her agents and friends to cover for her imposture as an
> intellectual and historian (and who have been doing it for so long that they
> don't dare stop) in the greatest British con since Piltdown Man.
> If Barbara Cartland had decided at age nineteen to become a scientist
> instead of a novelist, she'd have had university buildings named after her
> by the time she reached her sixties. Even as a novelist, she managed to
> pursue some remarkable sidelines before the pink-bonbon part of her became
> ascendant; can you imagine PG set down in the 1930s and coming up with a
> workable idea for troop-carrying gliders?"
>
> Doug here:
> Hadn't heard about the troop gliders, but she did write some very good
> (well, in *my* opinion) murder mysteries. Very well plotted, with
> interesting characters and a sense of humor.
> Doug
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> And, you would have known what you were getting into!
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:54 PM, "maroonnavywhite"
> >> <khafara@<mailto:khafara@>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I swear, Barbara Cartland would have done a better job than this Gregory
> >> woman - and would have been more honest in the bargain.
> >>
> >> Tamara
> >>
> >> --- In
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
> >> "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What exactly was MB negotiating with Richard for her son - restoration
> >> > of the Earldom of Richmond?
> >> >
> >> > She was surely aiming higher than that at this stage, and she could
> >> > hardly have asked Richard to name Henry as his heir. So what were these
> >> > "negotiations" about?
> >> >
> >> > --- In
> >> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>,
> >> > "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Just watched PG's "historical facts" programme. It didn't disappoint.
> >> > > Richard not sleeping with Anne was proof that she was no longer
> >> > > relevant, not that her doctor had warned him to stay away because she
> >> > > was so ill. He was definitely having an affair with Eof Y and EW was
> >> > > encouraging it. No mention that he was negotiating a marriage for her
> >> > > with the Portugese Prince. Edward IV actually killed Warwick at
> >> > > Barnet and then later she says Anne married Richard who killed most
> >> > > of her family at Barnet. Edward violated sanctuary and then summarily
> >> > > executed the Lancastrians, no mention of the trial that Richard
> >> > > presided over. I'm sure Stephen Goodchild of the Tewkesbury
> >> > > Battlefield Society will be quite surprised to hear that. They have
> >> > > been re-enacting the trial for years. Maybe PG ought to pay them a
> >> > > visit next year. Thomas Stanley intervened at Bosworth no mention of
> >> > > William. What a load of codswallop. It is appalling that the BBC is
> >> > > allowing this rubbish to be broadcast.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 21:13:44
I'd probably cut PG a little slack, if she weren't so earnestly pretending to be an historian. That's the part that rankles. Every novelist of historical fiction takes a few liberties...or they'd all write the same book, over and over.
E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime is a magnificent use of real persons in a wholly fictional context, and even he didn't claim to be anything other than a spinner of tales.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime is a magnificent use of real persons in a wholly fictional context, and even he didn't claim to be anything other than a spinner of tales.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 22:57:34
The Real The White Queen?
Apparently, only the Americans are getting that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGM6Vxzcqw
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I'd probably cut PG a little slack, if she weren't so earnestly pretending to be an historian. That's the part that rankles. Every novelist of historical fiction takes a few liberties...or they'd all write the same book, over and over.Â
>
> E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime is a magnificent use of real persons in a wholly fictional context, and even he didn't claim to be anything other than a spinner of tales.Â
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
>
>
> Â
> On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
> PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
> that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
Apparently, only the Americans are getting that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGM6Vxzcqw
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I'd probably cut PG a little slack, if she weren't so earnestly pretending to be an historian. That's the part that rankles. Every novelist of historical fiction takes a few liberties...or they'd all write the same book, over and over.Â
>
> E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime is a magnificent use of real persons in a wholly fictional context, and even he didn't claim to be anything other than a spinner of tales.Â
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
>
>
> Â
> On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
> PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
> that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-25 23:53:40
Oh, my, David....
And I think someone mentioned this, earlier, but "Richard" (yes, I watched the "Richard and Anne" video) could play Frodo Baggins' brother.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
The Real The White Queen?
Apparently, only the Americans are getting that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGM6Vxzcqw
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I'd probably cut PG a little slack, if she weren't so earnestly pretending to be an historian. That's the part that rankles. Every novelist of historical fiction takes a few liberties...or they'd all write the same book, over and over.Â
>
> E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime is a magnificent use of real persons in a wholly fictional context, and even he didn't claim to be anything other than a spinner of tales.Â
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
>
>
> Â
> On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
> PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
> that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
And I think someone mentioned this, earlier, but "Richard" (yes, I watched the "Richard and Anne" video) could play Frodo Baggins' brother.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
The Real The White Queen?
Apparently, only the Americans are getting that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaGM6Vxzcqw
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I'd probably cut PG a little slack, if she weren't so earnestly pretending to be an historian. That's the part that rankles. Every novelist of historical fiction takes a few liberties...or they'd all write the same book, over and over.Â
>
> E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime is a magnificent use of real persons in a wholly fictional context, and even he didn't claim to be anything other than a spinner of tales.Â
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
>
>
> Â
> On 25/07/2013 10:21, Jan Mulrenan wrote:
> > There is no evidence R3 killed her sons....
> PG got that right at least! All the rest is crap, so maybe she threw
> that truth in to make people think she is 'unbiased'.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-26 16:20:52
wednesday_mc wrote:
"What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
Doug
"What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
Doug
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-26 16:30:52
If Moffat or, especially, Davies were involved, the quality of writing would be 100 times higher...
Cheers
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
wednesday_mc wrote:
"What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
Doug
Cheers
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
wednesday_mc wrote:
"What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
Doug
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-27 21:09:28
Maybe they do make 'em like they used to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> If Moffat or, especially, Davies were involved, the quality of writing would be 100 times higher...
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 17:21
> Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
>
>
> Â
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
> that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
> since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
> Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
> last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
> PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
>
> Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> If Moffat or, especially, Davies were involved, the quality of writing would be 100 times higher...
>
> Cheers
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 17:21
> Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
>
>
>
> Â
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> "What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
> that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
> since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
> Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
> last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
> PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
>
> Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The Real White Queen??
2013-07-28 10:15:37
Actually this is rather better as it gets going, with Henry convincingly calculating, mean and grasping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MCqqZ8xfuQ
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe they do make 'em like they used to...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > If Moffat or, especially, Davies were involved, the quality of writing would be 100 times higher...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 17:21
> > Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
> > that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
> > since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
> > Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
> > last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
> > PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
> >
> > Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MCqqZ8xfuQ
--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe they do make 'em like they used to...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > If Moffat or, especially, Davies were involved, the quality of writing would be 100 times higher...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 17:21
> > Subject: Re: Re: The Real White Queen??
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > "What? She failed to mention MB's proposition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester
> > that they marry after MB became a widow? ("Tell him I've had saint's knees
> > since the age of eleven.") And it was Reggie Bray who suggested MB approach
> > Lord Stanley after Richard refused her? (Hey, it's in WQ and was broadcast
> > last week, so we all know it's the truth.)
> > PG and her TARDIS are slipping. Call the Doctor."
> >
> > Perhaps Moffet and Davies are PG's "historians"?
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.