Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-02 18:03:26

wednesdaymac .

Claire asked me to forward the following as she is unable to post to this list:

"The ceremonial stone eagle which was reported a few days ago to have been dug up in London was found close to the Tower of London at a depth of 12ft, and formed part of a Roman cemetery there, adding weight to the suggestion that the mystery skeletons are Roman and were on the fringes of the same cemetery.

Here are two links to the news stories one to The Guardian (more extensive), the other to BBC News:

Tiny URL Guardian article:

http://tinyurl.com/pf8eck6

Original Guardian URL:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/roman-eagle-found-archaeologists-london-sculpture-art

BBC News article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24740273

~Weds

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-02 19:21:42

Pamela Bain

That is so wonderful, and makes some of the more contemporary finds, not what we thought they were.....
On Nov 2, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "wednesdaymac ." <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Claire asked me to forward the following as she is unable to post to this list:

Here are two links to the news stories one to The Guardian (more extensive), the other to BBC News:

Tiny URL Guardian article:

http://tinyurl.com/pf8eck6

Original Guardian URL:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/roman-eagle-found-archaeologists-london-sculpture-art

BBC News article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24740273

~Weds

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-03 18:06:27

maroonnavywhite

That would also explain why one of the skeletons manifested a mouth/jaw disease that no contemporary sources had documented or even hinted at in either of Edward's two sons by EW.

Tamara

---In , <pbain@...> wrote:

That is so wonderful, and makes some of the more contemporary finds, not what we thought they were.....
On Nov 2, 2013, at 1:03 PM, "wednesdaymac ." <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Claire asked me to forward the following as she is unable to post to this list:

Here are two links to the news stories one to The Guardian (more extensive), the other to BBC News:

Tiny URL Guardian article:

http://tinyurl.com/pf8eck6

Original Guardian URL:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/roman-eagle-found-archaeologists-london-sculpture-art

BBC News article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24740273

~Weds

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-03 18:57:40

Jessie Skinner

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Sun, Nov 3, 2013 6:06:27 PM

That would also explain why one of the skeletons manifested a mouth/jaw disease that no contemporary sources had documented or even hinted at in either of Edward's two sons by EW.

Tamara

Here are two links to the news stories one to The Guardian (more extensive), the other to BBC News:

Tiny URL Guardian article:

http://tinyurl.com/pf8eck6

Original Guardian URL:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/roman-eagle-found-archaeologists-london-sculpture-art

BBC News article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24740273

~Weds

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-03 20:01:37

maroonnavywhite

My utterly inexpert guess is that the bones belong to either Late Roman or Romano-British boys who, if the ten-foot depth at which the bones were reportedly found is correct (in other words, if they were two feet above the stratum where the eagle was found), were buried at the edges of what was then probably a somewhat overcrowded cemetery as it had likely been in use for over three centuries at the time of the boys' internment.

Tamara

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Sun, Nov 3, 2013 6:06:27 PM

That would also explain why one of the skeletons manifested a mouth/jaw disease that no contemporary sources had documented or even hinted at in either of Edward's two sons by EW.

Tamara

Here are two links to the news stories one to The Guardian (more extensive), the other to BBC News:

Tiny URL Guardian article:

http://tinyurl.com/pf8eck6

Original Guardian URL:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/roman-eagle-found-archaeologists-london-sculpture-art

BBC News article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24740273

~Weds

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-03 23:34:13

Jessie Skinner

Then that is two inexpert guesses which are in agreement.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Sun, Nov 3, 2013 8:01:35 PM

Tamara

---In , <janjovian@...> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: khafara@... <khafara@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Sun, Nov 3, 2013 6:06:27 PM

That would also explain why one of the skeletons manifested a mouth/jaw disease that no contemporary sources had documented or even hinted at in either of Edward's two sons by EW.

Tamara

Here are two links to the news stories one to The Guardian (more extensive), the other to BBC News:

Tiny URL Guardian article:

http://tinyurl.com/pf8eck6

Original Guardian URL:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/29/roman-eagle-found-archaeologists-london-sculpture-art

BBC News article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24740273

~Weds

Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-04 14:08:27

Douglas Eugene Stamate

Jess wrote: "Then that is two inexpert guesses which are in agreement." Make it three! Doug

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-05 05:45:20

maroonnavywhite

The more I look at the Google map of that area of London, the more I do wonder if the land on which the White Tower sits might have housed at least one burial ground from Romano-Briton if not early Saxon times, a burial ground separate from the one under the Minories/Tower Hamlets area. There certainly seem to have been a number of hitherto-lost graveyards being discovered lately, so this wouldn't surprise me.

What's making me consider that this might be a totally different site are two things:

-- the White Tower looks to be at least 1000 feet from the nearest part of the Minories, and I doubt that even Roman cemeteries in Britain were big enough and sprawling enough to extend 1000 feet in any dimension. (Though now that I think some more, the graveyard in the Minories/Tower Hamlets is thought to have been 12 hectares, or 29.6 acres, in size, so it is conceivable that the area under the White Tower could have been on the very edge of it : http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/romcem_eh_2009/ )

-- the 1674 bones were reported to be at a depth on "about ten feet" as opposed to the twelve feet for the Minories eagle and tomb remnants. (Though again, this would also be consistent with a later burial on the edge of what would be circa 400 AD an old and somewhat crowded cemetery. It also could be that the original report on these bones comes from an unreliable narrator.)

Ping-ponging back and forth on this is making my head hurt.

Tamara (who needs to go to bed, and now)

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Jess wrote: "Then that is two inexpert guesses which are in agreement." Make it three! Doug

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-05 16:12:13

justcarol67

Jessie wrote:

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Carol responds:

I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).

They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.

We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)

Carol

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-05 16:50:08

maroonnavywhite

Claire just sent me the following email:

"The nearest point of the Minories is a bit nearer than that - if you look at the train station now called Tower Gateway, it's nearer to the Tower than the road called the Minories, but it used to be called Minories Station. So the area/parish called Minories extends closer to the Tower than the road does. "Modern British cemeteries are often that big and then some. The Grange cemetary in Edinburgh (started from the look of it in about 1800, and still in use) is about 950ft by 700ft. Newington cemetary where my grandmother's brother is buried is only about 400ft wide - but 2000ft long. Comely Bank cemetary, near the hospital where I used to work, is only 500ft square, but the great and famous Highgate Cemetary in London consists of two distinct sections, overlapping at a shared corner, and if you shunted those sections together to form one block it would be 2000ft long and around 600ft wide (i.e. half again as big as the one at Newington). "Keep remembering that the eagle was 12ft below the ground level of the Minories and the skeletons were 10ft below the ground level of the Tower - we don't know that the skeletons were 2ft higher than the eagle *unless* we know that the ground level of the Tower is level with the ground level of the Minories, which it almost certainly isn't." It also occurred to me that the ten-foot depth was in 1674 -- and what was the "surface" in 1674 might not be the surface today, as so much work's been done on the Tower since then. (Though likely not as much as was done between Richard's time and 1674 -- the Tower only had two stories in his day!) In any event, the bones were found so far below the surface, and the surface spot was in a highly visible and highly-trafficked part of the Tower complex, that it's hard to believe that any sort of hurried and secret burial, much less one that went down ten feet, could have been pulled off successfully. It's far more likely that the 1674 bones are (like the Iron-Age-era bones found there not too long ago) from a much older period than the late fifteenth century. Tamara ---In , <khafara@...> wrote:

What's making me consider that this might be a totally different site are two things:

Ping-ponging back and forth on this is making my head hurt.

Tamara (who needs to go to bed, and now)

---In , <destama@...> wrote:

Jess wrote: "Then that is two inexpert guesses which are in agreement." Make it three! Doug

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-05 18:05:37

EILEEN BATES

Possibly Roman foundation sacrifices...

--- In , <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Jessie wrote:
>
> It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).
>
> They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.
>
> We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)
>
> Carol
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 10:12:12

Paul Trevor Bale

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@... wrote:
Jessie wrote:

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Carol responds:

I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).

They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.

We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 10:19:31

Jessie Skinner

I agree with you about More his writing seems just a fabrication, anyway, why bother burying bodies when one is so near the Thames?

Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 10:12:09 AM

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 10:45:35

Jonathan Evans

At the risk of mentioning Josephine Wilkinson to you, she spends a chapter analysing More and demolishing him as a serious historical source in her new book about the Princes. In fact, I thought the whole book first rate and, coming from an academic historian, refreshing to the point of bravery in its refusal to subscribe to orthodoxy. Lastly, for anyone who got frustrated by the digressions in volume one of her life of Richard, it's very short.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 10:12
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@... wrote:
Jessie wrote:

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Carol responds:

I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).

They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.

We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 11:33:31

liz williams

Exactly, they would weigh them down and chuck them in the river.

As Paul says, the whole thing is absurd.

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 6/11/13, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
To: "@yahoogroups com" <>, "paul.bale@..." <paul.bale@...>
Date: Wednesday, 6 November, 2013, 10:19

I agree with you about More his writing seems just a fabrication, anyway, why bother burying bodies when one is so near the Thames?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 10:12:09 AM

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....



I agree with you about More his writing
seems just a fabrication, anyway, why bother burying bodies
when one is so near the Thames?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android








   From:

   Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...>;


   To:


<>;




   Subject:

   Re:
RE: Roman Stone Eagle


   Sent:

   Wed, Nov 6, 2013 10:12:09 AM

















   I'll
just jump in to remind people that
   More said that they were buried under the stairs 10
foot deep, AND
   LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.

   Why does everyone ignore that second part of his
fable?

   Paul

   who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction
anyway....



   On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@...
wrote:





   Jessie wrote:




   It seems unlikely to me in the extreme
   that the "urnchin's" are
Edward IV's sons, purely from
   the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is
without the
   previously undisclosed jaw disease. That
these bodies
   are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more
likely on
   the balance of probabilities.



   Carol responds:



   I don't know about the Roman cemetery,
but I certainly
   agree that a burial under the foundations
of a
   staircase ten feet deep in the ground must
predate the
   building of the staircase (and is not the
same as "at
   the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the
ground" as
   More puts it--quoted from memory so may
not be exact).
   I also agree that someone would have
mentioned the jaw
   disease, which could not have been hidden
if Edward,
   the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The
examiners of
   the bones (their names escape me at the
moment) worked
   unscientifically, gearing their
observations to a
   predetermined conclusion, and they took
Sir Thomas
   More's account as factual (ignoring
the part about the
   bones being moved and the foot of the
stairs not
   really matching under the foundations of a
staircase).



   They had no way of determining the sex or
sexes of the
   children (which they assumed to be male)
and the age
   estimates have been shown to be flawed.
Taking
   everything (including the diseased jaw)
into account,
   I agree that the (partial) skeletons are
unlikely to
   be those of Edward's sons and almost
certainly predate
   the building of that portion of the Tower,
but whether
   they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or
Roman, I can't
   guess. We'd have to know more about
their burial
   practices--which groups at least
occasionally buried
   their dead and which practiced cremation,
etc.



   We need an ally in the royal family and
another high
   up in the Anglican Church who will
authorize careful
   scientific examination of the bones from a
standpoint
   that does not predetermine the outcome of
the
   investigation. (To begin with, the DNA
should be sent
   anonymously to a lab to determine the
sex(es) of the
   children and whether they're related
to each other and
   to Richard using an anonymous sample of
his autosomal
   (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y
chromosome if
   they happen to be male. It can only be
done if the
   scientists don't know who they're
dealing with so that
   assumptions can't prejudice the
outcome. (Just look at
   the conclusions that paleoanthropologists
leap to
   about their fossils, each new fossil
"proving" the
   paleoanthropologist's preconceptions
about human
   origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with
those
   controversies, look at the original urn
   investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful
"He's a
   hunchback!" Objectivity in any
science involved with
   human beings and their history or origins
is a
   delusion.)



   Carol

























   --

   Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 11:40:08

Pamela Bain

Me, me, me......
On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:12 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 14:48:55

colyngbourne

Also, doesn't Wilkinson take apart the notion that one of the skeletons has a jaw disease - that this notion comes from some staining on one area of the jawbone, and it is wholly indeterminate that this is the result of some disease.

---In , <pbain@...> wrote:

Me, me, me......
On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:12 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@... wrote:
Jessie wrote:

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Carol responds:

I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).

They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.

We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 15:36:24

Jessie Skinner

Do I take it that you recommend this book by Josephine Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but didn't know if she was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir is anti. It isn't that I am averse to reading "anti" views, but I do like to know what I am dealing with.

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 10:45:33 AM

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 16:28:24

Jonathan Evans

I'd describe her as pro Richard, without being starry-eyed. And, on the central issue of the Princes, she's unequivocal in saying that he was the least likely person to have harmed them (if, indeed, they were harmed). Which is a big leap for an academic historian, given what sometimes seems like an unspoken pressure to either adhere to the traditional narrative or, at very best, sit uncomfortably on the fence.

She actually tends towards a belief in the survival of at least Richard of Shrewsbury, and is very good on tracing how the rumours of the deaths (which took a little while to harden into accusations of murder) were propagated by vested interests, travelled abroad and only later came *back* to England and entered general currency.

Jonathan
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "@yahoogroups com" <>; "jmcevans98@..." <jmcevans98@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 15:36
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

Do I take it that you recommend this book by Josephine Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but didn't know if she was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir is anti. It isn't that I am averse to reading "anti" views, but I do like to know what I am dealing with. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 10:45:33 AM

At the risk of mentioning Josephine Wilkinson to you, she spends a chapter analysing More and demolishing him as a serious historical source in her new book about the Princes. In fact, I thought the whole book first rate and, coming from an academic historian, refreshing to the point of bravery in its refusal to subscribe to orthodoxy. Lastly, for anyone who got frustrated by the digressions in volume one of her life of Richard, it's very short.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 10:12
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@... wrote:
Jessie wrote:

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Carol responds:

I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).

They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.

We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 16:32:06

A J Hibbard

Thanks Jonathan. Sounds like extremely good news, given the lamentation on this group earlier this year on the lack of an academic historian in Richard's camp. Just received word that my copy is on its way from the UK.
A J

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 16:49:25

EILEEN BATES

I thought that the staining on the bones was thought was taken by some as evidence of suffocation. From what I have read...most recently in Maligned King by Annette Carson...that experts have said that there are clear signs of disease in the jaw of the older child. Quoting from Maligned King....

'Dr Lyne-Pirkis made the observation 'in the jaw of the older skull there were areas of diseased bone. This phenomenon has been described by Wright as follows...
Extensive disease affecting almost equally both sides of the lower jaw originating in or around the molar teeth. On the left side the disease has spread to such an extent that it had destroyed the inter-dental septum between the first and second molar teeth. This disease was of a chronic nature and could not fail to have affected his (sic) general health. The gums of Edward (sic)in the lower molar region would be inflamed, swollen and septic and be no doubt associated with discomfort and irritability'

'Dr Lyne-Pirkis' opinion was that the condition was probably osteomyelitis or chronic inflammation of the bone which was quite a common condition in those days, it's fairly rare now. It's a very slow chronic disease... in those days there was no means of curing it so it just went on for years until either the body was able to defeat the infection and leave itself with a disorganised and rather odd looking bone, in this case the jaw or of course, if the defence of the body is not good enough, it finished you off and you died'.

Let us be sure on this score that the oldest child suffered from a horrible and painful diseased jaw. That it was never mentioned at the time more or less proves that this poor child was not Edward.
Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Also, doesn't Wilkinson take apart the notion that one of the skeletons has a jaw disease - that this notion comes from some staining on one area of the jawbone, and it is wholly indeterminate that this is the result of some disease.
>
>
> ---In , <pbain@> wrote:
>
> Me, me, me......
>
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:12 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@ mailto:paul.bale@> wrote:
>
>
> I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> Paul
> who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
>
> On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@ wrote:
>
> Jessie wrote:
>
> It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).
>
> They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.
>
> We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 17:32:12

EILEEN BATES

IMHO it is imperative, because we have so little to go on, that the diseased jaw is recognised as just that...a diseased jaw. Because we know that Dr Argentine who visited Edward shortly before his disappearance reports clearly that while Edward was peed off/depressed and fearing his death was imminent he fails to mention that he was suffering from a terrible toothache, dribbling and unable to eat properly. Even More does not mention it although he touches upon EW pleading for her other son to be able to remain with her in sanctuary as he had been poorly although someone else wrote at the time when he joined his brother in the Tower he was 'thank God merry' or words to that effect.

It baffles me that we have historians, and I use the term loosely, such as Dan Jones in his book on the history of the Tower saying that the disease jaw bone proves that it was Edward! It's really a complete nonsense and unfortunately people will read it and believe it. Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> I thought that the staining on the bones was thought was taken by some as evidence of suffocation. From what I have read...most recently in Maligned King by Annette Carson...that experts have said that there are clear signs of disease in the jaw of the older child. Quoting from Maligned King....
>
> 'Dr Lyne-Pirkis made the observation 'in the jaw of the older skull there were areas of diseased bone. This phenomenon has been described by Wright as follows...
> Extensive disease affecting almost equally both sides of the lower jaw originating in or around the molar teeth. On the left side the disease has spread to such an extent that it had destroyed the inter-dental septum between the first and second molar teeth. This disease was of a chronic nature and could not fail to have affected his (sic) general health. The gums of Edward (sic)in the lower molar region would be inflamed, swollen and septic and be no doubt associated with discomfort and irritability'
>
> 'Dr Lyne-Pirkis' opinion was that the condition was probably osteomyelitis or chronic inflammation of the bone which was quite a common condition in those days, it's fairly rare now. It's a very slow chronic disease... in those days there was no means of curing it so it just went on for years until either the body was able to defeat the infection and leave itself with a disorganised and rather odd looking bone, in this case the jaw or of course, if the defence of the body is not good enough, it finished you off and you died'.
>
> Let us be sure on this score that the oldest child suffered from a horrible and painful diseased jaw. That it was never mentioned at the time more or less proves that this poor child was not Edward.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Also, doesn't Wilkinson take apart the notion that one of the skeletons has a jaw disease - that this notion comes from some staining on one area of the jawbone, and it is wholly indeterminate that this is the result of some disease.
> >
> >
> > ---In , <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Me, me, me......
> >
> > On Nov 6, 2013, at 4:12 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@ mailto:paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > Paul
> > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> >
> > On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@ wrote:
> >
> > Jessie wrote:
> >
> > It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).
> >
> > They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.
> >
> > We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-06 20:00:08

mariewalsh2003

It's the same pattern with some of the other rumours, eg the murder of Edward of Lancaster was an idea cooked up on the continent which rerooted in England in Henry VII's reign.

Marie

---In , <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

I'd describe her as pro Richard, without being starry-eyed. And, on the central issue of the Princes, she's unequivocal in saying that he was the least likely person to have harmed them (if, indeed, they were harmed). Which is a big leap for an academic historian, given what sometimes seems like an unspoken pressure to either adhere to the traditional narrative or, at very best, sit uncomfortably on the fence.

She actually tends towards a belief in the survival of at least Richard of Shrewsbury, and is very good on tracing how the rumours of the deaths (which took a little while to harden into accusations of murder) were propagated by vested interests, travelled abroad and only later came *back* to England and entered general currency.

Jonathan
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "@yahoogroups com" <>; "jmcevans98@..." <jmcevans98@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 15:36
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

Do I take it that you recommend this book by Josephine Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but didn't know if she was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir is anti. It isn't that I am averse to reading "anti" views, but I do like to know what I am dealing with. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
Sent: Wed, Nov 6, 2013 10:45:33 AM

At the risk of mentioning Josephine Wilkinson to you, she spends a chapter analysing More and demolishing him as a serious historical source in her new book about the Princes. In fact, I thought the whole book first rate and, coming from an academic historian, refreshing to the point of bravery in its refusal to subscribe to orthodoxy. Lastly, for anyone who got frustrated by the digressions in volume one of her life of Richard, it's very short.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2013, 10:12
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

On 05/11/2013 16:12, justcarol67@... wrote:
Jessie wrote:

It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that the "urnchin's" are Edward IV's sons, purely from the 10 ft depth of the burial, and that is without the previously undisclosed jaw disease. That these bodies are from a. Roman cemetery seems much more likely on the balance of probabilities.

Carol responds:

I don't know about the Roman cemetery, but I certainly agree that a burial under the foundations of a staircase ten feet deep in the ground must predate the building of the staircase (and is not the same as "at the foot of the stairs meetly deep in the ground" as More puts it--quoted from memory so may not be exact). I also agree that someone would have mentioned the jaw disease, which could not have been hidden if Edward, the elder nephew, were indeed ill. The examiners of the bones (their names escape me at the moment) worked unscientifically, gearing their observations to a predetermined conclusion, and they took Sir Thomas More's account as factual (ignoring the part about the bones being moved and the foot of the stairs not really matching under the foundations of a staircase).

They had no way of determining the sex or sexes of the children (which they assumed to be male) and the age estimates have been shown to be flawed. Taking everything (including the diseased jaw) into account, I agree that the (partial) skeletons are unlikely to be those of Edward's sons and almost certainly predate the building of that portion of the Tower, but whether they're Norman, Saxon, Celtic, or Roman, I can't guess. We'd have to know more about their burial practices--which groups at least occasionally buried their dead and which practiced cremation, etc.

We need an ally in the royal family and another high up in the Anglican Church who will authorize careful scientific examination of the bones from a standpoint that does not predetermine the outcome of the investigation. (To begin with, the DNA should be sent anonymously to a lab to determine the sex(es) of the children and whether they're related to each other and to Richard using an anonymous sample of his autosomal (nonmitochondrial) DNA, including the Y chromosome if they happen to be male. It can only be done if the scientists don't know who they're dealing with so that assumptions can't prejudice the outcome. (Just look at the conclusions that paleoanthropologists leap to about their fossils, each new fossil "proving" the paleoanthropologist's preconceptions about human origins. Or, if you're unfamiliar with those controversies, look at the original urn investigation--or Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!" Objectivity in any science involved with human beings and their history or origins is a delusion.)

Carol

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-07 21:31:18

Paul Trevor Bale

On 06/11/2013 15:36, Jessie Skinner wrote:

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on

More a book about the lives of the saints than anything. Every time she mentions someone having an interest in a saint she goes into a biography of the saint. Becomes very dull very soon.
Paul

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-08 09:17:05

Jonathan Evans

Paul's talking about a different book here - the first volume of Wilkinson's 2 volume life of Richard. This, I've not read yet, although I have it, but I think Hilary liked it.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 21:31
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

On 06/11/2013 15:36, Jessie Skinner wrote:
Do I take it that you recommend this book by Josephine Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but didn't know if she was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir is anti. It isn't that I am averse to reading "anti" views, but I do like to know what I am dealing with. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on More a book about the lives of the saints than anything. Every time she mentions someone having an interest in a saint she goes into a biography of the saint. Becomes very dull very soon.
Paul

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-08 09:56:50

Hilary Jones

I actually like and use it quite a bit because, as you say, she is at times brave - like saying that Richard's 'affairs' probably post-dated his marriage. It is disorganised though, because she tries valiantly to illustrate what she means; so she tells you what a royal medieval marriage would have been like, what the ceremony for becoming a KG involved - so there's quite a bit of 'Richard would have ......' And as I'm sure Paul would say, there's an inordinate amount of time devoted to saints:) I reckon she's taken advice with this later book and it's much tighter. H.

On Friday, 8 November 2013, 9:17, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
Paul's talking about a different book here - the first volume of Wilkinson's 2 volume life of Richard. This, I've not read yet, although I have it, but I think Hilary liked it.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 21:31
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

On 06/11/2013 15:36, Jessie Skinner wrote:
Do I take it that you recommend this book by Josephine Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but didn't know if she was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir is anti. It isn't that I am averse to reading "anti" views, but I do like to know what I am dealing with. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on More a book about the lives of the saints than anything. Every time she mentions someone having an interest in a saint she goes into a biography of the saint. Becomes very dull very soon.
Paul

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-08 11:20:33

liz williams

I quite liked it too. I know what he means about the saints but overall I thought it was a good book and will definitely buy her one about the Princes

Liz

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 8/11/13, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
To: "" <>
Date: Friday, 8 November, 2013, 9:17

Paul's talking about a
different book here - the first volume of Wilkinson's 2
volume life of Richard. This, I've not read yet,
although I have it, but I think Hilary liked it.

Jonathan

From: Paul
Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:

Sent:
Thursday, 7
November 2013, 21:31
Subject: Re:
RE: Roman Stone Eagle

On
06/11/2013 15:36, Jessie Skinner
wrote:

Do I take it that you recommend this book
by Josephine
Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but
didn't know if she
was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir
is anti. It
isn't that I am averse to reading
"anti" views, but I do
like to know what I am dealing with.
Jess

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on

More a book about the lives of the saints than anything.
Every time
she mentions someone having an interest in a saint she
goes into a
biography of the saint. Becomes very dull very soon.

Paul

#yiv715756547 --
#yiv715756547ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mkp #yiv715756547hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mkp #yiv715756547ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mkp .yiv715756547ad {
padding:0 0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mkp .yiv715756547ad p {
margin:0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mkp .yiv715756547ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-sponsor
#yiv715756547ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-sponsor
#yiv715756547ygrp-lc #yiv715756547hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-sponsor
#yiv715756547ygrp-lc .yiv715756547ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547activity span {
font-weight:700;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547activity span
.yiv715756547underline {
text-decoration:underline;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547bold a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 dd.yiv715756547last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv715756547 dd.yiv715756547last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}

#yiv715756547 dd.yiv715756547last p
span.yiv715756547yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}

#yiv715756547 div.yiv715756547attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 div.yiv715756547attach-table {
width:400px;}

#yiv715756547 div.yiv715756547file-title a, #yiv715756547
div.yiv715756547file-title a:active, #yiv715756547
div.yiv715756547file-title a:hover, #yiv715756547
div.yiv715756547file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 div.yiv715756547photo-title a, #yiv715756547
div.yiv715756547photo-title a:active, #yiv715756547
div.yiv715756547photo-title a:hover, #yiv715756547
div.yiv715756547photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 div#yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv715756547ygrp-msg p a span.yiv715756547yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547green {
color:#628c2a;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}

#yiv715756547 o {
font-size:0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547reco-category {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}

#yiv715756547 .yiv715756547replbq {
margin:4px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg select, #yiv715756547
input, #yiv715756547 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv715756547
code {
font:115% monospace;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-mlmsg #yiv715756547logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-msg
p#yiv715756547attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-reco #yiv715756547reco-head
{
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-sponsor #yiv715756547ov li
a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-sponsor #yiv715756547ov li
{
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-sponsor #yiv715756547ov ul
{
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}

#yiv715756547 #yiv715756547ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;}
#yiv715756547

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-08 16:37:00

Pamela Furmidge

Given that Wilkinson's first book about Richard was written with sponsorship from a religious organisation, it is not surprising that she looks at his religious life in detail. She is of the belief that he was destined for a church career initially.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Paul's talking about a different book here - the first volume of Wilkinson's 2 volume life of Richard. This, I've not read yet, although I have it, but I think Hilary liked it.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 21:31
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

On 06/11/2013 15:36, Jessie Skinner wrote:
Do I take it that you recommend this book by Josephine Wilkinson? I saw it advertised but didn't know if she was pro or anti Richard. I know Allison Weir is anti. It isn't that I am averse to reading "anti" views, but I do like to know what I am dealing with. Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on More a book about the lives of the saints than anything. Every time she mentions someone having an interest in a saint she goes into a biography of the saint. Becomes very dull very soon.
Paul

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-08 16:38:12

Pamela Bain

As the youngest son, wouldn't that have been the case???

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:37 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

Paul's talking about a different book here - the first volume of Wilkinson's 2 volume life of Richard. This, I've not read yet, although I have it, but I think Hilary liked it.

Jonathan

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013, 21:31
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

On 06/11/2013 15:36, Jessie Skinner wrote:

Jess
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on

More a book about the lives of the saints than anything. Every time she mentions someone having an interest in a saint she goes into a biography of the saint. Becomes very dull very soon.
Paul

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-11 18:04:46

justcarol67

Paul wrote:

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

Carol responds:

More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.

So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actual location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.

What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).

I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.

Carol

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-12 12:50:16

Hilary Jones

Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants. H.

On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Paul wrote:

I'll just jump in to remind people that More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
Paul
who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....

Carol responds:

More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.

So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actual location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.

What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).

I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.

Carol

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-12 17:18:32

ellrosa1452

According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of £100.
Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :

But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.

He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Â H.
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Paul wrote:
>
> I'll just jump in to remind people that
> More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> Paul
> who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
>
> Carol responds:
>
> More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
>
> So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÂ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
>
> What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
>
> I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
>
> Carol
>
> Â
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-13 14:32:23

Hilary Jones

Sorry yes it was 1504. You know the more I read of Henry the more I pity him (no pun intended on the 'mores'). He led a dismal life, before and after becoming King. Few but his mother seemed to really love him, not even fat Henry his son. EOY, if she had her father's charisma, must have brought the only bit of monarchical 'glamour' to his life; and when she died life must have become very dark once more as Penn implies. Compare that with Richard who, despite all, came from a glamorous loving family (well EW apart but there's always an EW in the family), was loved by his tenants, servants and friends and, until the last few months, must have felt secure in the love of his brother, mother and family. Perhaps better to die in that one heroic charge for God and country rather than spend a life of insecurity wondering what lurked in the next shadow? H.

On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:

According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of £100.
Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :

But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.

He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Â H.
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> Paul wrote:
>
> I'll just jump in to remind people that
> More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> Paul
> who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
>
> Carol responds:
>
> More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
>
> So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÂ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
>
> What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
>
> I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
>
> Carol
>
> Â
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-13 16:56:07

justcarol67

Hilary wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Sorry yes it was 1504. You know the more I read of Henry the more I pity him (no pun intended on the 'mores'). He led a dismal life, before and after becoming King. Few but his mother seemed to really love him, not even fat Henry his son. EOY, if she had her father's charisma, must have brought the only bit of monarchical 'glamour' to his life; and when she died life must have become very dark once more as Penn implies. Compare that with Richard who, despite all, came from a glamorous loving family (well EW apart but there's always an EW in the family), was loved by his tenants, servants and friends and, until the last few months, must have felt secure in the love of his brother, mother and family. Perhaps better to die in that one heroic charge for God and country rather than spend a life of insecurity wondering what lurked in the next shadow? H.
Carol responds:

If Richard had won at Bosworth, I very much doubt that he would have spent his life lurking in the shadows. His victory would have "proven" to him and to the country that he was God's anointed. Alas for him and for us, his defeat "proved" that he was a usurper and that the claimless Tudor was the rightful king. But Richard's side would have written history if his charge against Tudor had succeeded. A true union of York and Lancaster, and in particular, the birth of a son had that happened, would have stabilized his reign (more "proof" that God was on his side--note the use Henry made of the birth of *his* first son and the fear he felt when that son died). His supporters would have lived (Norfolk perhaps excepted), he would have removed EoY from the picture by marrying her well, and opposition would have fallen away with the whereabouts of his nephews unknown and no Lancastrian candidate. (No one, it appears, wanted Warwick as king while Richard was alive.)

I can't imagine the active and intelligent Richard "lurking" under any circumstances, nor would he have had reason to do so had he won Bosworth.

Carol

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-13 18:36:01

EILEEN BATES

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Few but his mother seemed to really love him....

But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.

But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen

>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
> According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Â£100.
> Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
>
> But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
>
> He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Ã‚Â H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã‚Â
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > Paul
> > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> >
> > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃ‚Â location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> >
> > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> >
> > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Ã‚Â
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-13 19:57:29

Evelyn Hanson

I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Few but his mother seemed to really love him....

But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.

But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen

>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
> According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Â£100.
> Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
>
> But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
>
> He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.ÃÂ H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > Paul
> > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> >
> > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃÂ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> >
> > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> >
> > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 10:05:43

hjnatdat

Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more. H

---In , <lyn.hanson@...> wrote:

I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.

From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Few but his mother seemed to really love him....

But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.

But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen

>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
> According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Â£100.
> Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
>
> But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
>
> He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.ÃÂ H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > Paul
> > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> >
> > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃÂ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> >
> > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> >
> > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 13:10:36

EILEEN BATES

--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more.

Oh I understand very well Hilary...it is very human to feel pity for something or someone others might regard as quite 'orrid. (Not that I'm saying everyone finds HT 'orrid....I dare say he has his admirers)...I speak as one who instructs her husband not to 'hurt' any of the misguided slugs that sometimes wander into the kitchen from the garden...just remove them carefully....even though they make me feel a little ill :0)....oh and I'm not comparing HT to a slug either....as if I ever would!

Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen
>
>
> ---In , <lyn.hanson@> wrote:
>
> I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.
>
>
>
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> >Few but his mother seemed to really love him....
>
> But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.
>
> But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã‚
> >
> > According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Ã‚Â£100.
> > Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
> >
> > But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
> >
> > He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ H.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚
> > > Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > > Paul
> > > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> > >
> > > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃƒâ€šÃ‚ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> > >
> > > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> > >
> > > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚
> > >
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 14:48:04

Hilary Jones

Yes, and as we've said on here before, Henry would probably have made a much happier civil servant. In fact if Margaret's love was the sort that condemned him to a life of unhappy shadows to boost her ego then I'd question whether it was really love at all.

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 14:32, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more.

Oh I understand very well Hilary...it is very human to feel pity for something or someone others might regard as quite 'orrid. (Not that I'm saying everyone finds HT 'orrid....I dare say he has his admirers)...I speak as one who instructs her husband not to 'hurt' any of the misguided slugs that sometimes wander into the kitchen from the garden...just remove them carefully....even though they make me feel a little ill :0)....oh and I'm not comparing HT to a slug either....as if I ever would!

Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen
>
>
> ---In , <lyn.hanson@> wrote:
>
> I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.
>
>
>
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> >Few but his mother seemed to really love him....
>
> But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.
>
> But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of ÃÂ£100.
> > Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
> >
> > But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
> >
> > He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Ã’â¬aÃ H.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > > Paul
> > > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> > >
> > > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃ’â¬aÃ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> > >
> > > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> > >
> > > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > >
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 15:09:11

Pamela Furmidge

I think there is a danger that we look upon Medieval actions and make assumptions through (at least) 20th century eyes, if not 21st. Margaret Beaufort, by all accounts, had a wretched childbirth which, it seems, prevented her from having more children. She was only 13 or so at the time. Her son was given to Jasper to raise and later left the country and (presumably) Margaret didn't see him again until he was in his late twenties. One has to question how much mother 'love' she had for this young man. It is possible that she saw him only as a pawn in her feud with the Yorkists, rather than a dearly loved child. Henry himself seems to have had few friends. It may be that his mourning after the death of EoY was more because he had lost a companion, an equal, with whom he could interact, rather than a passionately loved wife.
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>wrote:
Yes, and as we've said on here before, Henry would probably have made a much happier civil servant. In fact if Margaret's love was the sort that condemned him to a life of unhappy shadows to boost her ego then I'd question whether it was really love at all.

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 14:32, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

--- In , <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more.

Oh I understand very well Hilary...it is very human to feel pity for something or someone others might regard as quite 'orrid. (Not that I'm saying everyone finds HT 'orrid....I dare say he has his admirers)...I speak as one who instructs her husband not to 'hurt' any of the misguided slugs that sometimes wander into the kitchen from the garden...just remove them carefully....even though they make me feel a little ill :0)....oh and I'm not comparing HT to a slug either....as if I ever would!

Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen
>
>
> ---In , <lyn.hanson@> wrote:
>
> I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.
>
>
>
>
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
> Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> >Few but his mother seemed to really love him....
>
> But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.
>
> But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of ÃÂ£100.
> > Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
> >
> > But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
> >
> > He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Ã’â¬aÃ H.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > > Paul wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > > Paul
> > > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> > >
> > > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃ’â¬aÃ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> > >
> > > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> > >
> > > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃ
> > >
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 15:33:50

EILEEN BATES

He would have made an excellent Tax Inspector.....I used to work in a tax office so I can be quite sure of that...
Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, and as we've said on here before, Henry would probably have made a much happier civil servant. In fact if Margaret's love was the sort that condemned him to a life of unhappy shadows to boost her ego Â then I'd question whether it was really love at all.
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 14:32, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more.
>
> Oh I understand very well Hilary...it is very human to feel pity for something or someone others might regard as quite 'orrid. (Not that I'm saying everyone finds HT 'orrid....I dare say he has his admirers)...I speak as one who instructs her husband not to 'hurt' any of the misguided slugs that sometimes wander into the kitchen from the garden...just remove them carefully....even though they make me feel a little ill :0)....oh and I'm not comparing HT to a slug either....as if I ever would!
>
> Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen
> >
> >
> > ---In , <lyn.hanson@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > >Few but his mother seemed to really love him....
> >
> > But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.
> >
> > But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ãƒâ€š
> > >
> > > According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£100.
> > > Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
> > >
> > > But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
> > >
> > > He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š H.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
> > > > Paul wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > > > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > > > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > > > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > > > Paul
> > > > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> > > >
> > > > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> > > >
> > > > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> > > >
> > > > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 16:18:10

Hilary Jones

Customs and Excise? Always deadlier than IR.

On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 15:33, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
He would have made an excellent Tax Inspector.....I used to work in a tax office so I can be quite sure of that...
Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, and as we've said on here before, Henry would probably have made a much happier civil servant. In fact if Margaret's love was the sort that condemned him to a life of unhappy shadows to boost her ego Â then I'd question whether it was really love at all.
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 14:32, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more.
>
> Oh I understand very well Hilary...it is very human to feel pity for something or someone others might regard as quite 'orrid. (Not that I'm saying everyone finds HT 'orrid....I dare say he has his admirers)...I speak as one who instructs her husband not to 'hurt' any of the misguided slugs that sometimes wander into the kitchen from the garden...just remove them carefully....even though they make me feel a little ill :0)....oh and I'm not comparing HT to a slug either....as if I ever would!
>
> Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen
> >
> >
> > ---In , <lyn.hanson@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > >Few but his mother seemed to really love him....
> >
> > But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.
> >
> > But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬a
> > >
> > > According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Ã’â¬aÃÂ£100.
> > > Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
> > >
> > > But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
> > >
> > > He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬a H.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > > Paul wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > > > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > > > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > > > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > > > Paul
> > > > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> > > >
> > > > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃ’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬a location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> > > >
> > > > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> > > >
> > > > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'Ã¢â¬Å¡Ã’â¬a
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 17:02:46

justcarol67

Eileen wrote:

"<snip> Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen"

Carol responds:

What MB thought of that honor would depend on what she was contemplating for her son at the time. If all she wanted was to bring him home (and for Richard to continue trusting Lord Stanley), she might well have been satisfied (if not exactly honored considering what must have been lifelong Lancastrian sympathies--or anti-Yorkist antipathy for reasons expressed in my previous post). I suspect that Anne, not Richard, chose her for the honor for whatever reason.

Regarding her "love" for her son (which reminds me of Margaret of Anjou's except that Queen Margaret kept her son beside her even as she manipulated him and acted in his "interest"--really, the "interest" of the Lancastrian dynasty as she saw it), it seems to me that the nearest modern analogue is stage mothers, soccer moms, and, most the mothers of toddler beauty queens. (Do those of you in the British Isles have any equivalent to the TV program "Toddlers and Tiaras"? I've never watched it, but the whole concept appalls me.) The arranged marriages of the period, for example that of little Anne of York and the teenage, adamantly Lancastrian Duke of Exeter, demonstrate the use of children to bring in money or make political alliances. All that has changed is that (some) parents of both sexes (when it comes to sports but mostly mothers when it comes to beauty pageants and child actors) are now in it mostly for the money and perhaps a touch of vicarious fame or glory to compensate for their own thwarted ambitions. That last element might give them something in common with MB (and give us a way of understanding not only her but many mothers of the time).

Again, just some thoughts for what they're worth.

Carol

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-14 17:41:57

EILEEN BATES

HMIT....25 years...I always felt it was payback time for something horrible I must have done in a previous life....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Customs and Excise? Always deadlier than IR.
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 15:33, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Â
> He would have made an excellent Tax Inspector.....I used to work in a tax office so I can be quite sure of that...
> Eileen
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and as we've said on here before, Henry would probably have made a much happier civil servant. In fact if Margaret's love was the sort that condemned him to a life of unhappy shadows to boost her ego Ã‚Â then I'd question whether it was really love at all.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 14 November 2013, 14:32, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã‚Â
> >
> >
> > --- In , <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen - I have not gone over to the dark side. It is possible to pity a five-legged spider but not to love it; (in fact I'd find it hard to love a six-legged one). Indeed perhaps I was being generous when I said MB loved Henry; she probably loved power more.
> >
> > Oh I understand very well Hilary...it is very human to feel pity for something or someone others might regard as quite 'orrid. (Not that I'm saying everyone finds HT 'orrid....I dare say he has his admirers)...I speak as one who instructs her husband not to 'hurt' any of the misguided slugs that sometimes wander into the kitchen from the garden...just remove them carefully....even though they make me feel a little ill :0)....oh and I'm not comparing HT to a slug either....as if I ever would!
> >
> > Returning to MB's 'love' for her son....I expect she did love him dearly..she was there for him when he lay dying..but as you say the love of power probably overtook that. As someone said she was a woman of her times but I don't think that excuses her actions and drive/greed for power which sent hundreds of men to their deaths. Why couldn't she have been content with what she had...an immensely rich woman and honoured with the task of carrying Queen Anne's train at the coronation. Im sure with a bit of wheedling she could have persuaded Richard to allow her son back into England. He seems to have been the forgiving type. But there you go...she went for it and the rest is history...Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > ---In , <lyn.hanson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with the previous e-mail likening her to Rose Kennedy - the goal was worth the cost, no matter how many sons it took. Since women were often the behind-the-scenes planners/negotiators (see Pastons), I see MB as a product of her time and class.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:35 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Few but his mother seemed to really love him....
> > >
> > > But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.
> > >
> > > But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > >
> > > > According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£100.
> > > > Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
> > > >
> > > > But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
> > > >
> > > > He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ H.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > > Paul wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > > > > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > > > > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > > > > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> > > > >
> > > > > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃƒÆ'Ã†'ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ'Ã¢â‚¬Å¡
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-16 20:53:22

ricard1an

Absolutely agree Eileen, I couldn't feel sorry for the Tydder ever.

---In , <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Few but his mother seemed to really love him....

But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.

But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen

>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
> According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Â£100.
> Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
>
> But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
>
> He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.Ã‚Â H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Ã‚Â
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > Paul
> > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> >
> > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃ‚Â location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> >
> > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> >
> > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Ã‚Â
> >
>

Re: Roman Stone Eagle

2013-11-16 21:44:07

liz williams

Nope, nor me and I am half Welsh! Liz
From: "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 November 2013, 20:53
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Roman Stone Eagle

Absolutely agree Eileen, I couldn't feel sorry for the Tydder ever.

---In , <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>Few but his mother seemed to really love him....

But wait! Was it not her incessant plotting that put him in the most deadliest danger...when he was hardly cut out of warrior material. He was within a whisker of death at Bosworth.....with Richard bearing down on him..axe raised...intent on clobbering him. It would seem that MB loved the idea of being a kings mother and the highest lady in the land perhaps a tad more than she loved her son. How gratifying she must have found when she got hold of Richard's prayer book filched out of his tent.

But feel sorry for Tudor? that'll be the day that night.....Eileen

>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013, 17:19, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Â
>
> According to Roper, More had a run-in with Henry when he was MP during the Parliament of 1504 regarding a proposed extortionate tax. More's criticisms apparently stirred up resentment and Henry, as a show of displeasure, seized More's father on a pretext and TM was coerced into paying a fine of Â£100.
> Furthermore in the History, More makes the allusion to the reign of the late Henry as one of underhandedness and duplicity in the following :
>
> But also for that all things were in late days so covertly managed, one thing pretended and another meant, that there was nothing so plain and openly proved but that yet for the common custom of close and covert dealing men had it ever inwardly suspect.
>
> He is referring to the Perkin Warbeck situation initially but the criticism of Henry VII is apparent. He is shifting timeframes to tell a narrative - the disappearance of the boys - through the more recent past. It suggests that he is operating on difference spheres/layers.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yep and according to Penn, More had a close run-in with HVII in 1508, which hardly makes him the greatest fan. In fact it's interesting what a load of backbiting scholars HVII had in his Court - a bit like Inspector Morse's Oxford. No wonder he got on better with his middle class civil servants.ÃÂ H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday, 11 November 2013, 18:04, "justcarol67@" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > I'll just jump in to remind people that
> > More said that they were buried under the stairs 10 foot deep, AND
> > LATER DUG UP AND REMOVED TO I KNOW NOT WHERE.
> > Why does everyone ignore that second part of his fable?
> > Paul
> > who thinks the whole More story ridiculous fiction anyway....
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > More said "meetly deep," not ten feet deep. That part comes from the discovery of the bones *under the foundations* of a staircase. The reason that "everyone" (meaning traditionalists?) ignores that part of More's tale is the same reason they ignore the part where he says that his version is only one of many he has heard, including the version in which one or both nephews escaped alive--it's what they want to believe. As for me, I think it's important to emphasize the differences between More's first version (meetly deep in the ground at the foot of the staircase under a great heap of stones) and the actual location of the bones (*ten feet deep* beneath the *foundations* of the staircase--quite a feat for the murderers to place them there undetected, not to mention that being under the foundations implies that the staircase was built on top of the skeletons.
> >
> > So, of course, we should emphasize that More had a lone priest dig them up (removing all those stones all by himself with no one aware of what he was doing), and rebury them More didn't know where (surely not beneath the foundations of a staircase, and, in any case, the whole idea of the reburial, besides providing an excuse for the bones not being found was to put the bodies in sacred ground). But we should also emphasize that the apparent similarities between More's story and the actualÃÂ location of the bones disappear on examination. The only similarity is the staircase.
> >
> > What More has done is to supply imaginary details and dialogue to one version of the rumor, implicating not only Tyrrell but other associates of Richard III (along with an imaginary priest and an imaginary page).
> >
> > I agree that More's "history" is a fable--or a novel, as I called it in another post. Even the addition of such details as strawberries, privies, and floor rushes (which unfortunately add verisimilitude to his imaginary scenes and dialogues) is the technique of a historical novelist--except that More didn't need to research his details because everyday life had changed little in thirty years.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
>

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.