Latest episode of TWQ

Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.

I keep thinking that a number of Ricardians are going to be writing books just to counter the horrid thing.

Tamara

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>

It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?

Eileen
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>

I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the time of Richard's funeral.


From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 

It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?

Eileen
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>

Oh God!!!
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the time of Richard's funeral.
>
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
> Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>
>  
>
> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>
> Eileen
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from his reign.
Eileen
--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Oh God!!!
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the time of Richard's funeral.
> >
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
> > Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
> >
> >  
> >
> > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Well, there are those of the coronation. I found them online at Google
Books in something called the Antiquarian Repertory. I apparently started
typing up the article from Vol. I. London. 1807. But when I went looking
just now, what looks like the same article is in Vol. II. from 1779.

A J


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, EILEEN BATES
<eileenbates147@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard
> survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from
> his reign.
> Eileen
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh God!!!
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the
> time of Richard's funeral.
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
> > > Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
> will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
> have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably
> make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

I would love to get the book but its far too much money...a copy on Ebay for £110! On my wish list if I win the lottery. I going to take a look now to see if I can find this Antiquarian Repertory...Cheers me dear...Eileen

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Well, there are those of the coronation. I found them online at Google
> Books in something called the Antiquarian Repertory. I apparently started
> typing up the article from Vol. I. London. 1807. But when I went looking
> just now, what looks like the same article is in Vol. II. from 1779.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard
> > survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from
> > his reign.
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh God!!!
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the
> > time of Richard's funeral.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
> > > > Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
> > will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
> > have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably
> > make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from his reign.

Carol responds:

Someone mentioned the coronation account where everyone's robes are described in great detail. I have a vague recollection of wheels of fire and pineapples.) Off the top of my head, I also remember a reference to robes and other clothing (for Richard only, apparently) for the investiture of his son Edward as Prince of Wales; a hotly debated passage on clothing for "the Lord Bastard"; and a reference at girders.com for the cloth presented to Bishop Stillington for his coronation robes. I think the wardrobe accounts must be intact. That would, I think, be where Vergil discovered that Sir James Tyrrell had been to London at the supposed right time to "murder" the "princes."

Carol

Thanks for that...found it! Very interesting and I wonder how Anne ever managed to stand up let alone walk with all that rich clothing...lots of crimson velvet and satin and Venetian gold ribbon..everything was lined and peppered with ermine.....what a glorious sight it must have been....I see MB got her clothing allowance too! Eileen

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Well, there are those of the coronation. I found them online at Google
> Books in something called the Antiquarian Repertory. I apparently started
> typing up the article from Vol. I. London. 1807. But when I went looking
> just now, what looks like the same article is in Vol. II. from 1779.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard
> > survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from
> > his reign.
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh God!!!
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the
> > time of Richard's funeral.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
> > > > Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
> > will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
> > have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably
> > make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol...Im not sure these Coronation accounts are the Wardrobe accounts which must have existed as well? However they do mention Edward and his 'henxman'....although I did not think that EoM attended the Coronation...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from his reign.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Someone mentioned the coronation account where everyone's robes are described in great detail. I have a vague recollection of wheels of fire and pineapples.) Off the top of my head, I also remember a reference to robes and other clothing (for Richard only, apparently) for the investiture of his son Edward as Prince of Wales; a hotly debated passage on clothing for "the Lord Bastard"; and a reference at girders.com for the cloth presented to Bishop Stillington for his coronation robes. I think the wardrobe accounts must be intact. That would, I think, be where Vergil discovered that Sir James Tyrrell had been to London at the supposed right time to "murder" the "princes."
>
> Carol
>

Could it have been Richard's nephew Edward rather than his son (but of
course, there were 2 of them weren't there).

A J


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Carol...Im not sure these Coronation accounts are the Wardrobe accounts
> which must have existed as well? However they do mention Edward and his
> 'henxman'....although I did not think that EoM attended the
> Coronation...Eileen
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard
> survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from
> his reign.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Someone mentioned the coronation account where everyone's robes are
> described in great detail. I have a vague recollection of wheels of fire
> and pineapples.) Off the top of my head, I also remember a reference to
> robes and other clothing (for Richard only, apparently) for the investiture
> of his son Edward as Prince of Wales; a hotly debated passage on clothing
> for "the Lord Bastard"; and a reference at girders.com for the cloth
> presented to Bishop Stillington for his coronation robes. I think the
> wardrobe accounts must be intact. That would, I think, be where Vergil
> discovered that Sir James Tyrrell had been to London at the supposed right
> time to "murder" the "princes."
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol...Im not sure these Coronation accounts are the Wardrobe accounts which must have existed as well? However they do mention Edward and his 'henxman'....although I did not think that EoM attended the Coronation...Eileen
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:

Marie replies:
I have looked at these accounts for Edward the Bastard and his henxmen. They are published, but I can't remember off hand what the book is. When you look in detail, it is clear what happened. These were payments for clothes made for Edward V for his own coronation - only the king had 8 henxmen (I think it was 8) attending him at the coronation. The number of henxmen and the sort of gear is exactly comparable to what was provided for Richard for his coronation. What evidently happened was that 'Edward V' was altered to 'Edward Bastard' or whatever afterwards. I imagine the reason these pages were not thrown out was an accounting one, ie the clothes had been made and so had to be paid for.

All four volumes of "Antiquarian Repertory" are available as free downloads (ebooks or PDFs or text or HTML) here:

http://archive.org/search.php?query=antiquarian%20repertory%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts

If that search link doesn't work:

1. Go to http://archive.org/
2. Enter "Antiquarian Repertory" in the search bar and select "texts" under "All Media Types".

It should come up with the same results.

~Weds


--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> I would love to get the book but its far too much money...a copy on Ebay for £110! On my wish list if I win the lottery. I going to take a look now to see if I can find this Antiquarian Repertory...Cheers me dear...Eileen
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there are those of the coronation. I found them online at Google
> > Books in something called the Antiquarian Repertory. I apparently started
> > typing up the article from Vol. I. London. 1807. But when I went looking
> > just now, what looks like the same article is in Vol. II. from 1779.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, EILEEN BATES
> > <eileenbates147@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Changing the subject slightly have any wardrobe accounts for Richard
> > > survived? Probably not....destroyed like so much of the documentation from
> > > his reign.
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES"
> > > <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh God!!!
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I have just had the horrible thought that they might repeat it at the
> > > time of Richard's funeral.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 11:03
> > > > > Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "ricard1an"
> > > <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
> > > will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
> > > have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably
> > > make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>
> Eileen
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
>

Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > >
> >
>

My manager has "really enjoyed" TWQ so far (no interest in history), but even she thought that last episode was boring rubbish.

Surely a step by step depiction of what actually happened would be more exciting and dramatic for the non aficionado than that garbled mess.

In trying to depict Richard as more a victim of events than a mover they made him look like a limp puppet of his wife and mother; I actually prefer Shakespeare's ruthless villain.

Sorry, Phillipa, but that has to be another "E" for history:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/queens-in-many-shades-of-grey-how-republican-philippa-gregory-is-sexing-up-the-royals-8744064.html

Regarding facial hair: Henry VIII was the first king of England to wear a beard since his non-ancestor Henry IV a century earlier. He did so to copy the French fashion, and it thereafter became the done thing in England. Very convenient for Henry who, a son of his father in this if nothing else, promptly introduced a tax on facial hair of anything over two days growth.



--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> My manager has "really enjoyed" TWQ so far (no interest in history), but even she thought that last episode was boring rubbish.
>
> Surely a step by step depiction of what actually happened would be more exciting and dramatic for the non aficionado than that garbled mess.
>
> In trying to depict Richard as more a victim of events than a mover they made him look like a limp puppet of his wife and mother; I actually prefer Shakespeare's ruthless villain.
>
> Sorry, Phillipa, but that has to be another "E" for history:
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/queens-in-many-shades-of-grey-how-republican-philippa-gregory-is-sexing-up-the-royals-8744064.html
>
> Regarding facial hair: Henry VIII was the first king of England to wear a beard since his non-ancestor Henry IV a century earlier. He did so to copy the French fashion, and it thereafter became the done thing in England. Very convenient for Henry who, a son of his father in this if nothing else, promptly introduced a tax on facial hair of anything over two days growth.

Marie interjects:
Before he started puking I thought maybe Edward was supposed to be dying from an attack of the killer fungus.

On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
Richard's real story on screen!
Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
Paul

> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>>
>> Eileen
>> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Lol....Crikey it was terrible wasn't it......but why can they not see it for themselves...the make up/wardrobe peoples....it's not rocket science is it.......?????

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > My manager has "really enjoyed" TWQ so far (no interest in history), but even she thought that last episode was boring rubbish.
> >
> > Surely a step by step depiction of what actually happened would be more exciting and dramatic for the non aficionado than that garbled mess.
> >
> > In trying to depict Richard as more a victim of events than a mover they made him look like a limp puppet of his wife and mother; I actually prefer Shakespeare's ruthless villain.
> >
> > Sorry, Phillipa, but that has to be another "E" for history:
> >
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/queens-in-many-shades-of-grey-how-republican-philippa-gregory-is-sexing-up-the-royals-8744064.html
> >
> > Regarding facial hair: Henry VIII was the first king of England to wear a beard since his non-ancestor Henry IV a century earlier. He did so to copy the French fashion, and it thereafter became the done thing in England. Very convenient for Henry who, a son of his father in this if nothing else, promptly introduced a tax on facial hair of anything over two days growth.
>
> Marie interjects:
> Before he started puking I thought maybe Edward was supposed to be dying from an attack of the killer fungus.
>

Paul,
 
what's it called?


Liz

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 10:17
Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 
On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
Richard's real story on screen!
Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
Paul

> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>>
>> Eileen
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I'm with you. What's it called? (and if that lottery win comes up  ....)


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 10:17
Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 
On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
Richard's real story on screen!
Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
Paul

> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>
>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>>
>> Eileen
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From what you're saying it makes Starkey's documentary look pro-Ricardian (the only 'crime' he could find for R was the probable murder of the princes). Surely the genuine historians who've got mixed up with PG must be feeling ashamed at this rubbish - or they must be desperate for money. I haven't watched it since the brothers stabbed Henry VI (who they'd dressed up to resemble Edward I). I just can't face it and it looks as though they're having to borrow from the surplus Henry VIII wardrobe department.   


From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 

Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > >
> >
>

One does wonder.....
1. Is the overwhelming quest for fame and fortune a sickness.
2. Can professional scruples, completely obliterate historic data, or at the very least a "story" based on history, but not HISTORY?
3. Are there so many actors and designers available, that just anyone will do, never mind the absolute departure from the most basic of looks, or nominal acting skills?
4. Are "we" a little nutty? I admit, I love Downton Abby, and so many other period shows. Are they bad too, and I am just barmey?



On Aug 6, 2013, at 5:07 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Lol....Crikey it was terrible wasn't it......but why can they not see it for themselves...the make up/wardrobe peoples....it's not rocket science is it.......?????

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > My manager has "really enjoyed" TWQ so far (no interest in history), but even she thought that last episode was boring rubbish.
> >
> > Surely a step by step depiction of what actually happened would be more exciting and dramatic for the non aficionado than that garbled mess.
> >
> > In trying to depict Richard as more a victim of events than a mover they made him look like a limp puppet of his wife and mother; I actually prefer Shakespeare's ruthless villain.
> >
> > Sorry, Phillipa, but that has to be another "E" for history:
> >
> > http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/queens-in-many-shades-of-grey-how-republican-philippa-gregory-is-sexing-up-the-royals-8744064.html
> >
> > Regarding facial hair: Henry VIII was the first king of England to wear a beard since his non-ancestor Henry IV a century earlier. He did so to copy the French fashion, and it thereafter became the done thing in England. Very convenient for Henry who, a son of his father in this if nothing else, promptly introduced a tax on facial hair of anything over two days growth.
>
> Marie interjects:
> Before he started puking I thought maybe Edward was supposed to be dying from an attack of the killer fungus.
>

Having missed a couple of episodes, I really don't have the heart to catch-up.  I could have lived with them taking liberties with the historical record if it worked as drama; I would probably even have coped with the 2-D characterisation and clunky plotting if it *looked* and *felt* appropriate to the period.  But it doesn't work on any level.

And what on earth is going on with all those beards?  Television and film usually underplay facial hair in periods when most men *would* have had it because it can appear stagy and distracting to our eyes (look any Victorian drama - or compare the film of 'Zulu' with photographs of the actual participants at Rorke's Drift).  Given all that, it seems perverse in the extreme to add it when you don't have to!

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 13:26
Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ



 
From what you're saying it makes Starkey's documentary look pro-Ricardian (the only 'crime' he could find for R was the probable murder of the princes). Surely the genuine historians who've got mixed up with PG must be feeling ashamed at this rubbish - or they must be desperate for money. I haven't watched it since the brothers stabbed Henry VI (who they'd dressed up to resemble Edward I). I just can't face it and it looks as though they're having to borrow from the surplus Henry VIII wardrobe department.   

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 22:15
Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 

Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> >
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > >
> >
>

How sad for you Jonathan that you missed the last episode....joking! This means you missed the dying Edward with, as Marie puts it, a sort of fungi growing on his chin, insisting that Richard be sent for, thus Richard and Anne being actually in the room when he was expiring, and a boy being put in the place of young Prince Richard, who leaves the Westminster Abbey Sanctuary in a boat, and no one asking any questions as to why the stand boy has his face covered up by a scarf with only his eyes showing because it doesnt look suspicious after all...Richard and Anne attending the beheading of Rivers and so much more. I bet your really upset now aren't you. ...Actually I don't really think I can hack much more of it...Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Having missed a couple of episodes, I really don't have the heart to catch-up.  I could have lived with them taking liberties with the historical record if it worked as drama; I would probably even have coped with the 2-D characterisation and clunky plotting if it *looked* and *felt* appropriate to the period.  But it doesn't work on any level.
>
> And what on earth is going on with all those beards?  Television and film usually underplay facial hair in periods when most men *would* have had it because it can appear stagy and distracting to our eyes (look any Victorian drama - or compare the film of 'Zulu' with photographs of the actual participants at Rorke's Drift).  Given all that, it seems perverse in the extreme to add it when you don't have to!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 13:26
> Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>
>
>
>  
> From what you're saying it makes Starkey's documentary look pro-Ricardian (the only 'crime' he could find for R was the probable murder of the princes). Surely the genuine historians who've got mixed up with PG must be feeling ashamed at this rubbish - or they must be desperate for money. I haven't watched it since the brothers stabbed Henry VI (who they'd dressed up to resemble Edward I). I just can't face it and it looks as though they're having to borrow from the surplus Henry VIII wardrobe department.   
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 5 August 2013, 22:15
> Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>
>  
>
> Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Jonathan Evans wrote:
//snip//
"And what on earth is going on with all those beards? Television and film
usually underplay facial hair in periods when most men *would* have had it
because it can appear stagy and distracting to our eyes (look any Victorian
drama - or compare the film of 'Zulu' with photographs of the actual
participants at Rorke's Drift). Given all that, it seems perverse in the
extreme to add it when you don't have to!"

Doug here:
Haven't seen any of the show (a further reason to be grateful for the events
of 1776?), but it occurred to me "scruff" is fashionable *now* and *that's*
the reason for beards (of any length/type)? Are the (bearded) actors perhaps
best known via photos/roles where they have, if not an actual beard, a
couple of days growth of facial hair? If one's used to seeing someone
clean-shaven and the beard/scruff is removed, it *can* make quite a
difference in appearance.
And from everyone's comments, it's apparent this series needs whatever it
can get to attract, and keep, viewers!
Doug

I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and " what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Evans wrote:
> //snip//
> "And what on earth is going on with all those beards? Television and film
> usually underplay facial hair in periods when most men *would* have had it
> because it can appear stagy and distracting to our eyes (look any Victorian
> drama - or compare the film of 'Zulu' with photographs of the actual
> participants at Rorke's Drift). Given all that, it seems perverse in the
> extreme to add it when you don't have to!"
>
> Doug here:
> Haven't seen any of the show (a further reason to be grateful for the events
> of 1776?), but it occurred to me "scruff" is fashionable *now* and *that's*
> the reason for beards (of any length/type)? Are the (bearded) actors perhaps
> best known via photos/roles where they have, if not an actual beard, a
> couple of days growth of facial hair? If one's used to seeing someone
> clean-shaven and the beard/scruff is removed, it *can* make quite a
> difference in appearance.
> And from everyone's comments, it's apparent this series needs whatever it
> can get to attract, and keep, viewers!
> Doug
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Evans wrote:
> //snip//
> "And what on earth is going on with all those beards? Television and film
> usually underplay facial hair in periods when most men *would* have had it
> because it can appear stagy and distracting to our eyes (look any Victorian
> drama - or compare the film of 'Zulu' with photographs of the actual
> participants at Rorke's Drift). Given all that, it seems perverse in the
> extreme to add it when you don't have to!"
>
> Doug here:
> Haven't seen any of the show (a further reason to be grateful for the events
> of 1776?), but it occurred to me "scruff" is fashionable *now* and *that's*
> the reason for beards (of any length/type)? Are the (bearded) actors perhaps
> best known via photos/roles where they have, if not an actual beard, a
> couple of days growth of facial hair? If one's used to seeing someone
> clean-shaven and the beard/scruff is removed, it *can* make quite a
> difference in appearance.
> And from everyone's comments, it's apparent this series needs whatever it
> can get to attract, and keep, viewers!
> Doug
>


Indeed, and I don't think it's just that 'scruff' is fashionable - it seems to be part of a wider trend of how the Middle Ages/early modern era are viewed these days. It's like the Middle Ages = dirty, half-savage, almost inhuman. Unkempt beards and hair that looks like it hasn't been washed in months is shorthand for 'I'm a ruthless warrior, hear me roar'.

It seems like it's hard to reconcile the worst parts of an era like the 15th century with the idea that these people might have been basically normal people like us, so they've got to distance them from us with visual cues that make the men look more barbaric. Oddly, the women characters usually still manage to look like they've been photoshopped to perfection...

I was going to call it the 'Game of Thrones' effect (which I haven't watched either, mind you - just judging by stills I've seen). But I think the trend started long before 'Game of Thrones' came along... even the ancient Romans look scruffy on TV these days.

Richard the Third - the mini series
Paul

On 06/08/2013 11:16, liz williams wrote:
> Paul,
>
> what's it called?
>
>
> Liz
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 10:17
> Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>
>
> On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
> I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
> looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
> Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
> characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
> the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
> story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
> Richard's real story on screen!
> Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
> Paul
>
>> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>>>
>>> Eileen
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Can't find it - do we have to send you a friend request? (I'm trying to
not accumulate friends - antisocial that I am!)

A J


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Richard the Third - the mini series
> Paul
>
> On 06/08/2013 11:16, liz williams wrote:
> > Paul,
> >
> > what's it called?
> >
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 10:17
> > Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>
> >
> >
> > On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
> > looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
> > Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
> > characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
> > the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
> > story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
> > Richard's real story on screen!
> > Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
> > Paul
> >
> >> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES"
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> >>>
> >>> Eileen
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an"
> <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
> will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
> have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably
> make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

I thought it would appear as a separate page but it seems to have grown
under my page Paul Trevor Bale
Haven't asked for people to friend me. Try again.
Paul
On 06/08/2013 16:31, A J Hibbard wrote:
> Can't find it - do we have to send you a friend request? (I'm trying to
> not accumulate friends - antisocial that I am!)
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Richard the Third - the mini series
>> Paul
>>
>> On 06/08/2013 11:16, liz williams wrote:
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> what's it called?
>>>
>>>
>>> Liz
>>>
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 10:17
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
>>> I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
>>> looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
>>> Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
>>> characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
>>> the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
>>> story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
>>> Richard's real story on screen!
>>> Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES"
>> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>>>>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eileen
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an"
>> <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
>> will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
>> have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably
>> make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Thanks Paul.

A J


On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> I thought it would appear as a separate page but it seems to have grown
> under my page Paul Trevor Bale
> Haven't asked for people to friend me. Try again.
> Paul
>
> On 06/08/2013 16:31, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > Can't find it - do we have to send you a friend request? (I'm trying to
> > not accumulate friends - antisocial that I am!)
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard the Third - the mini series
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On 06/08/2013 11:16, liz williams wrote:
> >>> Paul,
> >>>
> >>> what's it called?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Liz
> >>>
> >>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 10:17
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
> >>>
> >>> On 05/08/2013 21:03, ricard1an wrote:
> >>> I have just opened a new Facebook page as an anti dote to PG's nonsense
> >>> looking for support and finance for my Richard the Third mini series.
> >>> Gregory may have damaged the reputation of so many of my beloved
> >>> characters, and hated ones too, but judging by the majority reaction to
> >>> the WQ series, people will be crying out for a proper version of the
> >>> story of the period. I certainly am not giving up my dream to tell
> >>> Richard's real story on screen!
> >>> Come and say you're with me. And if you have any money to spare.....:-)
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>>> What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN
> BATES"
> >> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >>>>> It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eileen
> >>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an"
> >> <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>> Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You
> >> will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you
> >> have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will
> probably
> >> make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

I agree Eileen with such a fantastic story why did she need to change it? There is a petition on FB for a series based on Sharon Penman's "Sunne". I was thinking as it has taken 10 episodes to make a series out of PG's rubbish it will need a series on the lines of Downton Abbey to cover all of "Sunne". Incidentally I will not be watching another episode of TWQ. Last Sunday's episode was just a step too far. However, from what people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
Mary

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
>people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> Mary
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I jsut read C J Sansom's "Dominion" which has an Author's Note about 6 or 8 pages long.  In it he says (I can't remember it verbatim) something to the effect that even in a fictional story you have to treat the real characters with respect and not have them do things they didn't really do.  Okay he's talking about WW2 and people who are still remembered but even so, Gregoryshould take a leaf out of his book. 
 
Of course you can't libel the dead and therein lies the problem.
 

Liz

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2013, 21:21
Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 
OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
>people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> Mary
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

So Anne's gone from being Shakespeare's submissive lamb to Lady Macbeth?

Is it time to start guzzling antifreeze?

Tamara

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> >people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> > Mary
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

No...we shall not resort to the antifreeze yet....we shall, after we have ceased banging our heads on the wall...rise above it....remain stoic and unbowed by this mere gnat's bite and treat it with the contempt it deserves.....onwards and upwards....after all we have a King to see buried with the dignity he deserves after 500 years...wow...it doesnt come better than that does it and what do the writers of this nonsense have other than reputations for writing some of the worst tosh that we have ever had the misfortune to watch....Lol...I know whose shoes I would rather stand in right now...
Loyalte me Lie...Eileen
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is it time to start guzzling antifreeze?
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > >people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Well said! We should be thankful that it's not 'quality lies' like Shakespeare. No doubt someone will do a stunning adaptation of Mantel, the Tudors will unfortunately be top dogs again, and this tosh will be forgotten.
We'll wait for a quality piece from Paul!
PS Does 'wee Henry' now sport a beard?
 

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ

 
No...we shall not resort to the antifreeze yet....we shall, after we have ceased banging our heads on the wall...rise above it....remain stoic and unbowed by this mere gnat's bite and treat it with the contempt it deserves.....onwards and upwards....after all we have a King to see buried with the dignity he deserves after 500 years...wow...it doesnt come better than that does it and what do the writers of this nonsense have other than reputations for writing some of the worst tosh that we have ever had the misfortune to watch....Lol...I know whose shoes I would rather stand in right now...
Loyalte me Lie...Eileen
--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is it time to start guzzling antifreeze?
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > >people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I shall desert TWQ for The Shadow of the Tower. Having just seen the Henry VII character explain his policy on Yorkists in sanctuary by demonstrating hopscotch as he played it in Brittany I think TSOTT a more intriguing series. Not that you get to see the faces of the actors as he hops, just the feet. And the hair & costumes are better, just a tad monotone....
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 7 Aug 2013, at 16:01, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> Well said! We should be thankful that it's not 'quality lies' like Shakespeare. No doubt someone will do a stunning adaptation of Mantel, the Tudors will unfortunately be top dogs again, and this tosh will be forgotten.
> We'll wait for a quality piece from Paul!
> PS Does 'wee Henry' now sport a beard?
>
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ
>
>
> No...we shall not resort to the antifreeze yet....we shall, after we have ceased banging our heads on the wall...rise above it....remain stoic and unbowed by this mere gnat's bite and treat it with the contempt it deserves.....onwards and upwards....after all we have a King to see buried with the dignity he deserves after 500 years...wow...it doesnt come better than that does it and what do the writers of this nonsense have other than reputations for writing some of the worst tosh that we have ever had the misfortune to watch....Lol...I know whose shoes I would rather stand in right now...
> Loyalte me Lie...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it time to start guzzling antifreeze?
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Now I know how to settle in for next week's episode - several pork pies and a bottle of antifreeze.
Marie

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> No...we shall not resort to the antifreeze yet....we shall, after we have ceased banging our heads on the wall...rise above it....remain stoic and unbowed by this mere gnat's bite and treat it with the contempt it deserves.....onwards and upwards....after all we have a King to see buried with the dignity he deserves after 500 years...wow...it doesnt come better than that does it and what do the writers of this nonsense have other than reputations for writing some of the worst tosh that we have ever had the misfortune to watch....Lol...I know whose shoes I would rather stand in right now...
> Loyalte me Lie...Eileen
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it time to start guzzling antifreeze?
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > OMG! Just when you think it cannot get worse.....
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >people have posted on FB next week is evenmore fantastic, Anne persuades Brackenbury to get rid of the Princes!!!!
> > > > Mary
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Mary.....It's good to laugh :0)......but good grief...Sunday's episode was abysmal..there are no words really. I actually feel sorry for the actors...they do their best to save the day..but really...the writing...it is so far away from what we do know what happened..I am actually baffled...baffled as to why the writers have the need to change a damn good story into something quite different that it has become ludicrous...it's so unnecessary..Why?? .Yes we have to laugh otherwise we would have to weep.
> > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What a very apt expression Eileen. I love it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It really is the creme de la crap isn't it...?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just a warning to anyone who hasn't watched the latest episode. You will lose the will to live or it will make you laugh Marie, because you have such a huge amount of knowledge from primary sources, it will probably make you laugh, it is absolutely ridiculous.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen wrote:

"I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a
desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when
your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and
" what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the
dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with
MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?"

"...make him (Edward) appear older..."
They wanted to make a forty-year old appear older? An overweight,
not-in-too-good health forty year old? And not having a forty-year old actor
made up, or in this case, not made up to look any younger wouldn't have
worked?
What's the cast consist of - male rejects from "One Direction" and females
"too old" for "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"?
Doug

pansydobersby wrote:

"Indeed, and I don't think it's just that 'scruff' is fashionable - it seems
to be part of a wider trend of how the Middle Ages/early modern era are
viewed these days. It's like the Middle Ages = dirty, half-savage, almost
inhuman. Unkempt beards and hair that looks like it hasn't been washed in
months is shorthand for 'I'm a ruthless warrior, hear me roar'.
It seems like it's hard to reconcile the worst parts of an era like the 15th
century with the idea that these people might have been basically normal
people like us, so they've got to distance them from us with visual cues
that make the men look more barbaric. Oddly, the women characters usually
still manage to look like they've been photoshopped to perfection...
I was going to call it the 'Game of Thrones' effect (which I haven't watched
either, mind you - just judging by stills I've seen). But I think the trend
started long before 'Game of Thrones' came along... even the ancient Romans
look scruffy on TV these days."

Doug here:
As there *are* portrait paintings (or their copies) from the period that
show men *not* waering beards, plus all those illuminated manuscripts, it
looks as if the writers and producers are have enrolled in the PG "School of
History"; ie, "History? We don't need no stinkin' history!"
I think you may have hit on something in your second paragraph. A conscious
decision has to made when a series/movie is set in an earlier era as to
whether the similarities or the differences are to be emphasized.
Emphasizing the similarities means concentrating on the people involved,
good writing, characterization, letting the viewers see, and hear, for
themselves how little difference between the protagonists and us there is.
OTOH, should the production concentrate on the visual, it becomes very easy
to end up with something where the audience's reaction is a "Look at that!"
And not necessarily in a good way!
Is there just one director or do several people now have something to leave
off their resumes?
Doug

It's more a case of getting a healthy twenty-year old appear like a unhealthy 40 year old...I guess it was always going to be a problem to get around and probably beyond this particular actor's, who IMHO has been woefully miscast, scope. Not that I want to diss any of the casts acting abilities...some of them have been rather good...it's just the rancid script has proved their undoing.....Eileen
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> "I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a
> desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when
> your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and
> " what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the
> dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with
> MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?"
>
> "...make him (Edward) appear older..."
> They wanted to make a forty-year old appear older? An overweight,
> not-in-too-good health forty year old? And not having a forty-year old actor
> made up, or in this case, not made up to look any younger wouldn't have
> worked?
> What's the cast consist of - male rejects from "One Direction" and females
> "too old" for "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"?
> Doug
>

Do you think, in some waited way, they are trying for a "best/oddest/" costume award?

On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:



Eileen wrote:

"I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a
desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when
your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and
" what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the
dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with
MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?"

"...make him (Edward) appear older..."
They wanted to make a forty-year old appear older? An overweight,
not-in-too-good health forty year old? And not having a forty-year old actor
made up, or in this case, not made up to look any younger wouldn't have
worked?
What's the cast consist of - male rejects from "One Direction" and females
"too old" for "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"?
Doug

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Do you think, in some waited way, they are trying for a "best/oddest/" costume award?


Marie replies:
Being serious for a minute, you know I really don't think they realise they're being anachronistic. Lord Stanley was clearly based on the usual picture of a late Tudor person that's labelled as him ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby ). And there are other examples of Tudor families having retrospectively had portraits made of their long-dead ancestors, like the one of John, Duke of Norfolk, with the droopy moustache. I bet the costume designers looked at the likes of these rather than 15th-century art. Funny they seem to have missed the one of Buckingham, though; still think Arthur Darvill looks like a stock medieval villain from a 1930s movie.















>
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> "I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a
> desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when
> your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and
> " what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the
> dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with
> MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?"
>
> "...make him (Edward) appear older..."
> They wanted to make a forty-year old appear older? An overweight,
> not-in-too-good health forty year old? And not having a forty-year old actor
> made up, or in this case, not made up to look any younger wouldn't have
> worked?
> What's the cast consist of - male rejects from "One Direction" and females
> "too old" for "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"?
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

......... Harold II style?
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: Latest episode of TWQ





--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Do you think, in some waited way, they are trying for a "best/oddest/" costume award?

Marie replies:
Being serious for a minute, you know I really don't think they realise they're being anachronistic. Lord Stanley was clearly based on the usual picture of a late Tudor person that's labelled as him ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby ). And there are other examples of Tudor families having retrospectively had portraits made of their long-dead ancestors, like the one of John, Duke of Norfolk, with the droopy moustache. I bet the costume designers looked at the likes of these rather than 15th-century art. Funny they seem to have missed the one of Buckingham, though; still think Arthur Darvill looks like a stock medieval villain from a 1930s movie.

>
> On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...<mailto:destama@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> "I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a
> desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when
> your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and
> " what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the
> dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with
> MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?"
>
> "...make him (Edward) appear older..."
> They wanted to make a forty-year old appear older? An overweight,
> not-in-too-good health forty year old? And not having a forty-year old actor
> made up, or in this case, not made up to look any younger wouldn't have
> worked?
> What's the cast consist of - male rejects from "One Direction" and females
> "too old" for "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"?
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I dabble in game design, and on several occasions I've had to explain this at great length to lead designers who automatically use "portraits" of medieval people as the model for artwork.

Of particular note is the appalling "likeness" of Warwick in full Elizabethan costume and ginger beard:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080114014360/turtledove/images/8/8f/Warwick_the_Kingmaker.gif

I hate that picture.


Incidentally, I work in a charity shop and recently we've received a large number of PG's novels donated in "mint" condition (i.e. unread). In contrast, "Game of Thrones" books donated are invariably too dog eared to be saleable.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Do you think, in some waited way, they are trying for a "best/oddest/" costume award?
>
>
> Marie replies:
> Being serious for a minute, you know I really don't think they realise they're being anachronistic. Lord Stanley was clearly based on the usual picture of a late Tudor person that's labelled as him ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby ). And there are other examples of Tudor families having retrospectively had portraits made of their long-dead ancestors, like the one of John, Duke of Norfolk, with the droopy moustache. I bet the costume designers looked at the likes of these rather than 15th-century art. Funny they seem to have missed the one of Buckingham, though; still think Arthur Darvill looks like a stock medieval villain from a 1930s movie.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2013, at 10:51 AM, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@<mailto:destama@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> >
> > "I think in this case, ie Edward's rather peculiar chin sprouting was a
> > desperate attempt to make him appear older....which failed. Of course when
> > your attention is held by someone's beard....."OMG what a weird beard " and
> > " what on earth is that beard made of" you are not concentrating on the
> > dialogue...hey! maybe there is a method in their madness....Same as with
> > MB....what a strange mouth/chin she has....?"
> >
> > "...make him (Edward) appear older..."
> > They wanted to make a forty-year old appear older? An overweight,
> > not-in-too-good health forty year old? And not having a forty-year old actor
> > made up, or in this case, not made up to look any younger wouldn't have
> > worked?
> > What's the cast consist of - male rejects from "One Direction" and females
> > "too old" for "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"?
> > Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>