Re: Today's question
Re: Today's question
2013-08-21 13:01:38
I think that Richard's position with regard to 'southerners' was even worse than you imagine. If you look at the High Sheriffs of southern counties you will see a number of northerners - or in the case of Cornwall, a Suffolk gentleman strongly linked to Richard.
The list of 'knights' fighting at Bosworth reinforces the same view, that the names on the Yorkist side are predominantly northern; those from the "Lancastrian" side from Wales and the south, especially the West Country. I use quotation marks, because many where Yorkists loyal to Edward and his sons.
As a proud 'northerner' I would be very unhappy with an invasion of southerners to administer county matters. I am sure this would have been the same during the late 15th century.
It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the 500 or so who escaped after the 1483 rebellion to form a court-in-exile at Vannes around Henry. These people had formed the administrative layer of many of the the southern counties. So where they were replaced by Richard's northerners, the effect for the population must have felt like a foreign invasion.
This migration / successful escape of the opposition elements also explains why Richard's reign seems comparitively quiet.
Skidmore's Bosworth mentions some Cornishmen arrested for trying to send £52 to Robert Willoughby in Brittany - an indication that these exiles still had family links / support back in their home counties. Does anyone know what happened to them?
For those outside the UK, the north and south of England are like different countries. Also, we sometimes think in terms of modern transport and land boundaries. I think that an Exeter merchant would be more likely to have contact with a business partner across the channel in Brittany than with one from Durham.
David
The list of 'knights' fighting at Bosworth reinforces the same view, that the names on the Yorkist side are predominantly northern; those from the "Lancastrian" side from Wales and the south, especially the West Country. I use quotation marks, because many where Yorkists loyal to Edward and his sons.
As a proud 'northerner' I would be very unhappy with an invasion of southerners to administer county matters. I am sure this would have been the same during the late 15th century.
It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the 500 or so who escaped after the 1483 rebellion to form a court-in-exile at Vannes around Henry. These people had formed the administrative layer of many of the the southern counties. So where they were replaced by Richard's northerners, the effect for the population must have felt like a foreign invasion.
This migration / successful escape of the opposition elements also explains why Richard's reign seems comparitively quiet.
Skidmore's Bosworth mentions some Cornishmen arrested for trying to send £52 to Robert Willoughby in Brittany - an indication that these exiles still had family links / support back in their home counties. Does anyone know what happened to them?
For those outside the UK, the north and south of England are like different countries. Also, we sometimes think in terms of modern transport and land boundaries. I think that an Exeter merchant would be more likely to have contact with a business partner across the channel in Brittany than with one from Durham.
David
Re: Today's question
2013-08-21 13:29:56
Okay, thanks. I have gathered from numerous discussions elsewhere that the
north-south divide in England, as in the US, still exists - although ours
was for a time blurred after 9/11. And thanks for the suggestion regarding
the high sheriffs, because looking at the lists of those named to the
commissions of the peace, I would re-iterate that my impression so far is
that much of the personnel remained the same commission to commission even
in the southern counties I've looked at. Are there other sources to mine
for lists of those involved in the layers of administration you refer to?
A J
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I think that Richard's position with regard to 'southerners' was even
> worse than you imagine. If you look at the High Sheriffs of southern
> counties you will see a number of northerners - or in the case of Cornwall,
> a Suffolk gentleman strongly linked to Richard.
>
> The list of 'knights' fighting at Bosworth reinforces the same view, that
> the names on the Yorkist side are predominantly northern; those from the
> "Lancastrian" side from Wales and the south, especially the West Country. I
> use quotation marks, because many where Yorkists loyal to Edward and his
> sons.
>
> As a proud 'northerner' I would be very unhappy with an invasion of
> southerners to administer county matters. I am sure this would have been
> the same during the late 15th century.
>
> It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the 500 or so who
> escaped after the 1483 rebellion to form a court-in-exile at Vannes around
> Henry. These people had formed the administrative layer of many of the the
> southern counties. So where they were replaced by Richard's northerners,
> the effect for the population must have felt like a foreign invasion.
>
> This migration / successful escape of the opposition elements also
> explains why Richard's reign seems comparitively quiet.
>
> Skidmore's Bosworth mentions some Cornishmen arrested for trying to send
> ý52 to Robert Willoughby in Brittany - an indication that these exiles
> still had family links / support back in their home counties. Does anyone
> know what happened to them?
>
> For those outside the UK, the north and south of England are like
> different countries. Also, we sometimes think in terms of modern transport
> and land boundaries. I think that an Exeter merchant would be more likely
> to have contact with a business partner across the channel in Brittany than
> with one from Durham.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
north-south divide in England, as in the US, still exists - although ours
was for a time blurred after 9/11. And thanks for the suggestion regarding
the high sheriffs, because looking at the lists of those named to the
commissions of the peace, I would re-iterate that my impression so far is
that much of the personnel remained the same commission to commission even
in the southern counties I've looked at. Are there other sources to mine
for lists of those involved in the layers of administration you refer to?
A J
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> I think that Richard's position with regard to 'southerners' was even
> worse than you imagine. If you look at the High Sheriffs of southern
> counties you will see a number of northerners - or in the case of Cornwall,
> a Suffolk gentleman strongly linked to Richard.
>
> The list of 'knights' fighting at Bosworth reinforces the same view, that
> the names on the Yorkist side are predominantly northern; those from the
> "Lancastrian" side from Wales and the south, especially the West Country. I
> use quotation marks, because many where Yorkists loyal to Edward and his
> sons.
>
> As a proud 'northerner' I would be very unhappy with an invasion of
> southerners to administer county matters. I am sure this would have been
> the same during the late 15th century.
>
> It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the 500 or so who
> escaped after the 1483 rebellion to form a court-in-exile at Vannes around
> Henry. These people had formed the administrative layer of many of the the
> southern counties. So where they were replaced by Richard's northerners,
> the effect for the population must have felt like a foreign invasion.
>
> This migration / successful escape of the opposition elements also
> explains why Richard's reign seems comparitively quiet.
>
> Skidmore's Bosworth mentions some Cornishmen arrested for trying to send
> ý52 to Robert Willoughby in Brittany - an indication that these exiles
> still had family links / support back in their home counties. Does anyone
> know what happened to them?
>
> For those outside the UK, the north and south of England are like
> different countries. Also, we sometimes think in terms of modern transport
> and land boundaries. I think that an Exeter merchant would be more likely
> to have contact with a business partner across the channel in Brittany than
> with one from Durham.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
2013-08-21 18:25:31
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Okay, thanks. I have gathered from numerous discussions elsewhere that the north-south divide in England, as in the US, still exists - although ours was for a time blurred after 9/11. And thanks for the suggestion regarding the high sheriffs, because looking at the lists of those named to the commissions of the peace, I would re-iterate that my impression so far is that much of the personnel remained the same commission to commission even in the southern counties I've looked at. Are there other sources to mine for lists of those involved in the layers of administration you refer to?
>
> A J
Carol responds:
AJ, have you compared your lists with those attainted for participating in Buckingham's rebellion (one of the acts of Parliament for January 1484)? It's only after the rebellion that Richard, having no choice in the matter, brought in loyal northerners to replace the rebels (who had brought about their own replacement by rebelling!). But as far as I know, none of this relates to the *Londoners* in general, only to specific minor officials formerly serving Edward IV in specific southern counties.
I think it's a mistake to think of the counties themselves or the majority of their residents as in rebellion against Richard. It's more a matter of minor officials who thought (wrongly) that their interests were threatened by Richard's accession. They would have retained their posts if they hadn't been seduced into treason, probably (IMO) by Woodville adherents intent on restoring Edward V. (Note that the attainder doesn't even mention Tudor. I don't think that he had anything to do with the initial wave of rebellion; he just took advantage of it--and Sir Edward Woodville's foolish alliance with him. Where Buckingham fits in is anyone's guess.)
Carol
>
> Okay, thanks. I have gathered from numerous discussions elsewhere that the north-south divide in England, as in the US, still exists - although ours was for a time blurred after 9/11. And thanks for the suggestion regarding the high sheriffs, because looking at the lists of those named to the commissions of the peace, I would re-iterate that my impression so far is that much of the personnel remained the same commission to commission even in the southern counties I've looked at. Are there other sources to mine for lists of those involved in the layers of administration you refer to?
>
> A J
Carol responds:
AJ, have you compared your lists with those attainted for participating in Buckingham's rebellion (one of the acts of Parliament for January 1484)? It's only after the rebellion that Richard, having no choice in the matter, brought in loyal northerners to replace the rebels (who had brought about their own replacement by rebelling!). But as far as I know, none of this relates to the *Londoners* in general, only to specific minor officials formerly serving Edward IV in specific southern counties.
I think it's a mistake to think of the counties themselves or the majority of their residents as in rebellion against Richard. It's more a matter of minor officials who thought (wrongly) that their interests were threatened by Richard's accession. They would have retained their posts if they hadn't been seduced into treason, probably (IMO) by Woodville adherents intent on restoring Edward V. (Note that the attainder doesn't even mention Tudor. I don't think that he had anything to do with the initial wave of rebellion; he just took advantage of it--and Sir Edward Woodville's foolish alliance with him. Where Buckingham fits in is anyone's guess.)
Carol
Re: Today's question
2013-08-21 18:41:08
Yes - I'm in the process of comparing the members of these commissions with
the names of those attainted following Buckingham's rebellion, & my initial
impression is, as you suggest, that many of the changes in personnel were
reactive. (It's also notable how many of those attainted bounced back in
the first commissions of Henry VII.)
But I'm only part way through accumulating the information & some ways away
from a complete analysis. I do hope that by showing the degree of
stability in the composition of these commissions, it may be possible to
support your point that the majority were NOT in rebellion against Richard.
A J
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Okay, thanks. I have gathered from numerous discussions elsewhere that
> the north-south divide in England, as in the US, still exists - although
> ours was for a time blurred after 9/11. And thanks for the suggestion
> regarding the high sheriffs, because looking at the lists of those named to
> the commissions of the peace, I would re-iterate that my impression so far
> is that much of the personnel remained the same commission to commission
> even in the southern counties I've looked at. Are there other sources to
> mine for lists of those involved in the layers of administration you refer
> to?
> >
> > A J
>
> Carol responds:
>
> AJ, have you compared your lists with those attainted for participating in
> Buckingham's rebellion (one of the acts of Parliament for January 1484)?
> It's only after the rebellion that Richard, having no choice in the matter,
> brought in loyal northerners to replace the rebels (who had brought about
> their own replacement by rebelling!). But as far as I know, none of this
> relates to the *Londoners* in general, only to specific minor officials
> formerly serving Edward IV in specific southern counties.
>
> I think it's a mistake to think of the counties themselves or the majority
> of their residents as in rebellion against Richard. It's more a matter of
> minor officials who thought (wrongly) that their interests were threatened
> by Richard's accession. They would have retained their posts if they hadn't
> been seduced into treason, probably (IMO) by Woodville adherents intent on
> restoring Edward V. (Note that the attainder doesn't even mention Tudor. I
> don't think that he had anything to do with the initial wave of rebellion;
> he just took advantage of it--and Sir Edward Woodville's foolish alliance
> with him. Where Buckingham fits in is anyone's guess.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
the names of those attainted following Buckingham's rebellion, & my initial
impression is, as you suggest, that many of the changes in personnel were
reactive. (It's also notable how many of those attainted bounced back in
the first commissions of Henry VII.)
But I'm only part way through accumulating the information & some ways away
from a complete analysis. I do hope that by showing the degree of
stability in the composition of these commissions, it may be possible to
support your point that the majority were NOT in rebellion against Richard.
A J
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard wrote:
> >
> > Okay, thanks. I have gathered from numerous discussions elsewhere that
> the north-south divide in England, as in the US, still exists - although
> ours was for a time blurred after 9/11. And thanks for the suggestion
> regarding the high sheriffs, because looking at the lists of those named to
> the commissions of the peace, I would re-iterate that my impression so far
> is that much of the personnel remained the same commission to commission
> even in the southern counties I've looked at. Are there other sources to
> mine for lists of those involved in the layers of administration you refer
> to?
> >
> > A J
>
> Carol responds:
>
> AJ, have you compared your lists with those attainted for participating in
> Buckingham's rebellion (one of the acts of Parliament for January 1484)?
> It's only after the rebellion that Richard, having no choice in the matter,
> brought in loyal northerners to replace the rebels (who had brought about
> their own replacement by rebelling!). But as far as I know, none of this
> relates to the *Londoners* in general, only to specific minor officials
> formerly serving Edward IV in specific southern counties.
>
> I think it's a mistake to think of the counties themselves or the majority
> of their residents as in rebellion against Richard. It's more a matter of
> minor officials who thought (wrongly) that their interests were threatened
> by Richard's accession. They would have retained their posts if they hadn't
> been seduced into treason, probably (IMO) by Woodville adherents intent on
> restoring Edward V. (Note that the attainder doesn't even mention Tudor. I
> don't think that he had anything to do with the initial wave of rebellion;
> he just took advantage of it--and Sir Edward Woodville's foolish alliance
> with him. Where Buckingham fits in is anyone's guess.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
2013-08-21 18:56:44
Just a little note. I can't offer details, I'm afraid, but I've got a feeling the extent - or at least the novelty - of Richard's plantation has been questioned somewhat recently. Anyway, at the Study Weekend Lynda Pygeon produced a spreadsheet of over 5,000 names she's put together, marking whether friends or foes and northern or southern, and the upshot was that there were plenty of friends and foes on both sides of the geographic divide, and of course when you get down to the nitty-gritty you find a lot of people are midlanders - so you have to make a decision about which half they belong to - and others had for a long time held property in both North and South. A lot of Richard's top people as duke were southern rather than northern - John Kendall his secretary, Morgan Kidwelly his attorney, Sir James Tyrell of course. Lovell had estates in both north and south and the chief family seat was in Oxfordshire. Of "the Cat, the Rat and Lovell our Dog", one was a northerner (Ratcliffe), one a midlander (Catesby) and one a southerner (Lovell).
People in some localities were probably used to quite a lot of plantation of "foreigners" if they lived on estates owned by very powerful lords with widespread landholdings. Warwick certainly brought Yorkshiremen down to Warwick with him, and a lot of trouble some of them caused. There was a branch of the Scropes already settled in Devon.
I'm not denying the plantation of officials that was the inevitable result of Buckingham's Rebellion, just trying to put it in a bit more context.
Marie
--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> I think that Richard's position with regard to 'southerners' was even worse than you imagine. If you look at the High Sheriffs of southern counties you will see a number of northerners - or in the case of Cornwall, a Suffolk gentleman strongly linked to Richard.
>
> The list of 'knights' fighting at Bosworth reinforces the same view, that the names on the Yorkist side are predominantly northern; those from the "Lancastrian" side from Wales and the south, especially the West Country. I use quotation marks, because many where Yorkists loyal to Edward and his sons.
>
> As a proud 'northerner' I would be very unhappy with an invasion of southerners to administer county matters. I am sure this would have been the same during the late 15th century.
>
> It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the 500 or so who escaped after the 1483 rebellion to form a court-in-exile at Vannes around Henry. These people had formed the administrative layer of many of the the southern counties. So where they were replaced by Richard's northerners, the effect for the population must have felt like a foreign invasion.
>
> This migration / successful escape of the opposition elements also explains why Richard's reign seems comparitively quiet.
>
> Skidmore's Bosworth mentions some Cornishmen arrested for trying to send £52 to Robert Willoughby in Brittany - an indication that these exiles still had family links / support back in their home counties. Does anyone know what happened to them?
>
> For those outside the UK, the north and south of England are like different countries. Also, we sometimes think in terms of modern transport and land boundaries. I think that an Exeter merchant would be more likely to have contact with a business partner across the channel in Brittany than with one from Durham.
>
> David
>
>
>
People in some localities were probably used to quite a lot of plantation of "foreigners" if they lived on estates owned by very powerful lords with widespread landholdings. Warwick certainly brought Yorkshiremen down to Warwick with him, and a lot of trouble some of them caused. There was a branch of the Scropes already settled in Devon.
I'm not denying the plantation of officials that was the inevitable result of Buckingham's Rebellion, just trying to put it in a bit more context.
Marie
--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> I think that Richard's position with regard to 'southerners' was even worse than you imagine. If you look at the High Sheriffs of southern counties you will see a number of northerners - or in the case of Cornwall, a Suffolk gentleman strongly linked to Richard.
>
> The list of 'knights' fighting at Bosworth reinforces the same view, that the names on the Yorkist side are predominantly northern; those from the "Lancastrian" side from Wales and the south, especially the West Country. I use quotation marks, because many where Yorkists loyal to Edward and his sons.
>
> As a proud 'northerner' I would be very unhappy with an invasion of southerners to administer county matters. I am sure this would have been the same during the late 15th century.
>
> It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of the 500 or so who escaped after the 1483 rebellion to form a court-in-exile at Vannes around Henry. These people had formed the administrative layer of many of the the southern counties. So where they were replaced by Richard's northerners, the effect for the population must have felt like a foreign invasion.
>
> This migration / successful escape of the opposition elements also explains why Richard's reign seems comparitively quiet.
>
> Skidmore's Bosworth mentions some Cornishmen arrested for trying to send £52 to Robert Willoughby in Brittany - an indication that these exiles still had family links / support back in their home counties. Does anyone know what happened to them?
>
> For those outside the UK, the north and south of England are like different countries. Also, we sometimes think in terms of modern transport and land boundaries. I think that an Exeter merchant would be more likely to have contact with a business partner across the channel in Brittany than with one from Durham.
>
> David
>
>
>
Re: Today's question
2013-08-21 19:12:05
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Yes - I'm in the process of comparing the members of these commissions with the names of those attainted following Buckingham's rebellion, & my initial impression is, as you suggest, that many of the changes in personnel were reactive. (It's also notable how many of those attainted bounced back in the first commissions of Henry VII.)
>
> But I'm only part way through accumulating the information & some ways away from a complete analysis. I do hope that by showing the degree of stability in the composition of these commissions, it may be possible to support your point that the majority were NOT in rebellion against Richard.
Carol responds:
I don't suppose anyone has done a study on the populations of the various counties at the time, figuring the approximate number of men of fighting age (16-60) who were not members of the clergy (or incapacitated by illness, injury, or infirmity) and compared that with the number of dissident Yorkists who rebelled against Richard. (Diehard Lancastrians wouldn't count; they would have their own reasons for ultimately supporting the Tydder.) At any rate, I suspect that the percentage of rebels was rather small and motivated primarily by self-interest. (A few idealists or Woodville adherents may have felt that young Edward had been "wronged," but idealism and altruism were probably in limited supply. Certainly, they weren't motivated by Edward V's supposed death. That rumor only diverted their support to Tudor (*if* he promised to marry E o Y--and, as far as I know, did not add to the ranks of the rebels since it was aimed at those who were already disaffected).
Do check Annette Carson regarding the support of the Londoners and her references to Horrox if you get the chance.
Carol
>
> Yes - I'm in the process of comparing the members of these commissions with the names of those attainted following Buckingham's rebellion, & my initial impression is, as you suggest, that many of the changes in personnel were reactive. (It's also notable how many of those attainted bounced back in the first commissions of Henry VII.)
>
> But I'm only part way through accumulating the information & some ways away from a complete analysis. I do hope that by showing the degree of stability in the composition of these commissions, it may be possible to support your point that the majority were NOT in rebellion against Richard.
Carol responds:
I don't suppose anyone has done a study on the populations of the various counties at the time, figuring the approximate number of men of fighting age (16-60) who were not members of the clergy (or incapacitated by illness, injury, or infirmity) and compared that with the number of dissident Yorkists who rebelled against Richard. (Diehard Lancastrians wouldn't count; they would have their own reasons for ultimately supporting the Tydder.) At any rate, I suspect that the percentage of rebels was rather small and motivated primarily by self-interest. (A few idealists or Woodville adherents may have felt that young Edward had been "wronged," but idealism and altruism were probably in limited supply. Certainly, they weren't motivated by Edward V's supposed death. That rumor only diverted their support to Tudor (*if* he promised to marry E o Y--and, as far as I know, did not add to the ranks of the rebels since it was aimed at those who were already disaffected).
Do check Annette Carson regarding the support of the Londoners and her references to Horrox if you get the chance.
Carol
August 22nd again
2013-08-21 20:24:05
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-21 20:36:41
I'll be up for the dawn watch. =^..^=
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:24 PM
To:
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:24 PM
To:
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-21 20:39:25
Oh dear, thank you for reminding us, I think.
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:24 PM
To:
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:24 PM
To:
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-21 20:45:54
Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Oh dear, thank you for reminding us, I think.
Carol responds:
It's still almost half a day away here in the U.S., but we won't forget. I've been thinking about it all week.
Carol
>
> Oh dear, thank you for reminding us, I think.
Carol responds:
It's still almost half a day away here in the U.S., but we won't forget. I've been thinking about it all week.
Carol
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-21 20:57:09
Me too, far more than I have in the past. At least he's been found.
Liz
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: August 22nd again
Carol responds:
It's still almost half a day away here in the U.S., but we won't forget. I've been thinking about it all week.
Carol
Liz
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 20:45
Subject: Re: August 22nd again
Carol responds:
It's still almost half a day away here in the U.S., but we won't forget. I've been thinking about it all week.
Carol
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-22 05:54:38
It's a little past midnight here, and I mournfully crawl into bed. A bleak day, ahead.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:24 PM
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-22 09:09:56
You should have a look at the YouTube that Karen has pasted. A beautiful video for today - the Bosworth scenes are particularly moving. H
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 20:24
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2013, 20:24
Subject: August 22nd again
Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
Remember.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-22 14:38:44
R.I.P. Richard, Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
> Remember.
> Paul
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
> Remember.
> Paul
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: August 22nd again
2013-08-22 15:51:01
Yes indeed Richard RIP....
The next worst thing for me...the first being that Richard and his comrades lost theisr lives obviously ...is the thought of his belongings being sifted through by the victors mates...I find it very hard not to dwell upon that thought on this particular hateful day...
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> R.I.P. Richard, Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
> > Remember.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
The next worst thing for me...the first being that Richard and his comrades lost theisr lives obviously ...is the thought of his belongings being sifted through by the victors mates...I find it very hard not to dwell upon that thought on this particular hateful day...
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> R.I.P. Richard, Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Here we are again, the saddest of days in the Ricardian calender.
> > Remember.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.