Where is everyone?

It is nearly sixty hours since the last message was posted. This is
highly unusual.
I am looking forward to Jones' next book (Marie mentioned it from the
event she attended) which will hopefully include a PROPER
genealogical table of Clarence's descendents. My only other suitable
book mentions Warwick and Salisbury but not even her husband. So much
that I have learned in the past two years is only held in my head.

--- In , "stephenmlark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> It is nearly sixty hours since the last message was posted. This is
> highly unusual.

Sorry Stephen, I think maybe you've stumped us. Personally I don't
know what to think. Your idea is certainly unusual, but legally valid
I should think.
But I suppose the real-life response is the question. Will it confirm
us all as loonies who don't know the difference between distant
history (some other family's at that) and real life (especially one's
own)?
Does Antonia Fraser know she is being used in evidence?
I'd like to think the answer to these questions is:
a) no, and
b) yes,
and be able to say - Go for it. Can you elucidate - please ??

Marie

> I am looking forward to Jones' next book (Marie mentioned it from
the
> event she attended) which will hopefully include a PROPER
> genealogical table of Clarence's descendents. My only other
suitable
> book mentions Warwick and Salisbury but not even her husband. So
much
> that I have learned in the past two years is only held in my head.

Well, I think we all know that feeling, but evidently needs to be
remedied before taking a court case. A long time preparing would be
in order, even if the general verdict was in favour.
Come on everyone. where are you?

Marie

Marie asked: Come on everyone. where are you?

***

I'm not qualified to give an opinion. I have no legal
training. So I haven't responded.

I think list members with legal training are in a
better position than I am to comment on this project.

I'm not sure that "anything that damages the Tudors
helps us." That's a very broad statement. But I'll
leave it to better qualified list members to comment
on this as well.

If Royal Pardons for the post-Bosworth Yorkists can
contribute to more balanced treatment of Richard III,
I'm all for it.

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Stephen wrote: Amazon doesn't mention the book yet but
I shall see Jones in Norwich in November. It is almost
a sequel to his "Bosworth" volume.

***

Please post the publication information to the list
when you find out. I'd like to read it.

Will you see Jones at the same Nov. meeting that
Alison Weir is speaking at? Or are those two
different events?

TIA!

Marion




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Stephen wrote: The same event. I am stocking up on
eggs and tomatoes for Ms. Weir (verbal ones, anyway).

***

Wish I could go. I hope they aren't scheduled to
speak at the same time.

I have some questions for Weir. But I haven't finished
her book, because I couldn't wait to read "Bosworth
1485" and "The Perfect Prince."

There are too many books more compelling than Weir's.
I've been reading "Richard III; a study of service,"
by Rosemary Horrox. I'm reading Walpole's Historic
Doubts on the subway. I'm still waiting to borrow a
copy of Laynesmith's "4 Medieval Queens."

If I don't finish Weir's book before Nov., could you
ask her this:

"Ms. Weir, how can you believe this description is
literally true:

'Whereupon they say that a priest of Sir Robert
Brakenbury took up the bodies again and secretly
interred them in such place as, by the occasion of his
death--for he alone knew it--could never since come to
light.' ("Richard III, the great debate; More's
History of King Richard III/Walpole's Historic
Doubts," ed. by P.M. Kendall. NY: Norton, c1965, p.
106)


1 - How could a priest--whose job description probably
didn't include grave-digging, let alone unburials and
re-burials--unearth a wooden box holding two corpses
and rebury them by himself?

2 - How long does it take to dig and refill two
graves? How long does it take to carry a wooden box
holding 2 corpses from one gravesite to another? Was
there time for one priest to do all that between
midnight and sunrise?

3 - The royal armory, mint, and menangerie--as well as
the royal apartments--were located in the Tower then.
How did the priest avoid beeing seen and questioned by
some of those guards as he carried the wooden box from
one gravesite to the other? Could all of those guards
have been paid to keep quiet? Wouldn't one or more of
them have talked about it sooner or later?

And this:

Ms. Weir, how can you repeatedly cite More's Richard
III as a trustworthy version of events?"

I can't accept More's "Re3" as literal truth. It
reads like a tall story to me. It amazes me that
anyone can cite More seriously. When I read anything
that cites More as a trustworthy source, I can't help
asking myself: Is this author quoting with a straight
face? Or is this author pulling my leg?

And this: Ms. Weir, Are you pulling your readers'
legs? <G><G>


TIA!

Marion









__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
>
> 1 - How could a priest--whose job description probably
> didn't include grave-digging, let alone unburials and
> re-burials--unearth a wooden box holding two corpses
> and rebury them by himself?
>
> 2 - How long does it take to dig and refill two
> graves? How long does it take to carry a wooden box
> holding 2 corpses from one gravesite to another? Was
> there time for one priest to do all that between
> midnight and sunrise?
>
> 3 - The royal armory, mint, and menangerie--as well as
> the royal apartments--were located in the Tower then.
> How did the priest avoid beeing seen and questioned by
> some of those guards as he carried the wooden box from
> one gravesite to the other? Could all of those guards
> have been paid to keep quiet? Wouldn't one or more of
> them have talked about it sooner or later?


Don't forget that this athletic priest chose to rebury the box of
corpses under a stone staircase -- leading to the Chapel of St Johnin
the White Tower -- that was in daily use at the time. And he did it
during one night, not leaving a trace of his work.

If he accomplished all that without detection, he performed as
miracle that should have quaified him for sainthood, himself.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , marion davis
> <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> >
> > 1 - How could a priest--whose job description probably
> > didn't include grave-digging, let alone unburials and
> > re-burials--unearth a wooden box holding two corpses
> > and rebury them by himself?
> >
> > 2 - How long does it take to dig and refill two
> > graves? How long does it take to carry a wooden box
> > holding 2 corpses from one gravesite to another? Was
> > there time for one priest to do all that between
> > midnight and sunrise?
> >
> > 3 - The royal armory, mint, and menangerie--as well as
> > the royal apartments--were located in the Tower then.
> > How did the priest avoid beeing seen and questioned by
> > some of those guards as he carried the wooden box from
> > one gravesite to the other? Could all of those guards
> > have been paid to keep quiet? Wouldn't one or more of
> > them have talked about it sooner or later?
>
>
> Don't forget that this athletic priest chose to rebury the box of
> corpses under a stone staircase -- leading to the Chapel of St
Johnin
> the White Tower -- that was in daily use at the time. And he did
it
> during one night, not leaving a trace of his work.
>
> If he accomplished all that without detection, he performed as
> miracle that should have quaified him for sainthood, himself.
>
> Katy

Bit slow here - has there been a new biog of R out that is worth
redaing and I missed it? I am not convinced that there is a legal
leg to stand on re post 1485 rebels, since the Tudor had been
crowned so it was treason. Have all the Bosworth attainted been
pardoned/reversed? Was Richard's own actually reversed by anyone? if
so I missed it somewhere along the line.

I have been reading Horrox on and off for nearly a year but I was a
bit disappointed that it is negative, and put off by her own
complete lack of persona in presentation. She doesn't "make the
earth move". 3

Weir is in good company with her stubborn adherence to the paptent
Tudor drivel More spots, for Starkey of course is another. Starkey
is less than impressive in many respects as an academic for he tends
to gravitate towards the seedy and sordid and loves to make rather
racy and untenable statements. I haven't yet read this one by Weir,
but am insufficiently impressed by her other stuff to rush to buy it.
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , marion davis
> > <phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1 - How could a priest--whose job description probably
> > > didn't include grave-digging, let alone unburials and
> > > re-burials--unearth a wooden box holding two corpses
> > > and rebury them by himself?
> > >
> > > 2 - How long does it take to dig and refill two
> > > graves? How long does it take to carry a wooden box
> > > holding 2 corpses from one gravesite to another? Was
> > > there time for one priest to do all that between
> > > midnight and sunrise?
> > >
> > > 3 - The royal armory, mint, and menangerie--as well as
> > > the royal apartments--were located in the Tower then.
> > > How did the priest avoid beeing seen and questioned by
> > > some of those guards as he carried the wooden box from
> > > one gravesite to the other? Could all of those guards
> > > have been paid to keep quiet? Wouldn't one or more of
> > > them have talked about it sooner or later?
> >
> >
> > Don't forget that this athletic priest chose to rebury the box of
> > corpses under a stone staircase -- leading to the Chapel of St
> Johnin
> > the White Tower -- that was in daily use at the time. And he did
> it
> > during one night, not leaving a trace of his work.
> >
> > If he accomplished all that without detection, he performed as
> > miracle that should have quaified him for sainthood, himself.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Bit slow here - has there been a new biog of R out that is worth
> redaing and I missed it? I am not convinced that there is a legal
> leg to stand on re post 1485 rebels, since the Tudor had been
> crowned so it was treason. Have all the Bosworth attainted been
> pardoned/reversed? Was Richard's own actually reversed by anyone?
if
> so I missed it somewhere along the line.

At the risk of putting words in Stephen's mouth, I imagine his
argument re Warwick is that he was set up, that he hadn't actually
plotted against Henry at all. Such an case would not have argue the
illegitimacy of Henry's own position as a legal fact, but Henry's
motive in setting Warwick up for execution - ie the pathetic nature
of his own claim - would inevitably be presented, as would Warwick's
good treatment under richard. So the publicity /public education
achievement would be :-

1) Henry nasty man - poor innocent Warwick. Compare the fact of
Warwick's long imprisonment & judicial murder with the mere
speculation about the Princes' fates.

2) Henry had no right to be monarch either (and probably neither did
his Yorkist queen). So would you rely on this man to tell you his
(probably legit.) predecessor was a killer of child rivals? Would you
buy a used car from this man?

I'm not sure how one would manage with the other Yorkists, however.
Perhaps we should stick to Warwick and his poor old mum.

Marie

I have one question for Weir. How can you call your works history, when you
make up so many "facts" to suit your off the wall and often already
disproved theories?
Paul

> Stephen wrote: The same event. I am stocking up on
> eggs and tomatoes for Ms. Weir (verbal ones, anyway).
>
> ***
>
> Wish I could go. I hope they aren't scheduled to
> speak at the same time.
>
> I have some questions for Weir. But I haven't finished
> her book, because I couldn't wait to read "Bosworth
> 1485" and "The Perfect Prince."
>
> There are too many books more compelling than Weir's.
> I've been reading "Richard III; a study of service,"
> by Rosemary Horrox. I'm reading Walpole's Historic
> Doubts on the subway. I'm still waiting to borrow a
> copy of Laynesmith's "4 Medieval Queens."
>
> If I don't finish Weir's book before Nov., could you
> ask her this:
>
> "Ms. Weir, how can you believe this description is
> literally true:
>
> 'Whereupon they say that a priest of Sir Robert
> Brakenbury took up the bodies again and secretly
> interred them in such place as, by the occasion of his
> death--for he alone knew it--could never since come to
> light.' ("Richard III, the great debate; More's
> History of King Richard III/Walpole's Historic
> Doubts," ed. by P.M. Kendall. NY: Norton, c1965, p.
> 106)
>
>
> 1 - How could a priest--whose job description probably
> didn't include grave-digging, let alone unburials and
> re-burials--unearth a wooden box holding two corpses
> and rebury them by himself?
>
> 2 - How long does it take to dig and refill two
> graves? How long does it take to carry a wooden box
> holding 2 corpses from one gravesite to another? Was
> there time for one priest to do all that between
> midnight and sunrise?
>
> 3 - The royal armory, mint, and menangerie--as well as
> the royal apartments--were located in the Tower then.
> How did the priest avoid beeing seen and questioned by
> some of those guards as he carried the wooden box from
> one gravesite to the other? Could all of those guards
> have been paid to keep quiet? Wouldn't one or more of
> them have talked about it sooner or later?
>
> And this:
>
> Ms. Weir, how can you repeatedly cite More's Richard
> III as a trustworthy version of events?"
>
> I can't accept More's "Re3" as literal truth. It
> reads like a tall story to me. It amazes me that
> anyone can cite More seriously. When I read anything
> that cites More as a trustworthy source, I can't help
> asking myself: Is this author quoting with a straight
> face? Or is this author pulling my leg?
>
> And this: Ms. Weir, Are you pulling your readers'
> legs? <G><G>
>
>
> TIA!
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

It has gone rather quiet in the past four days.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It has gone rather quiet in the past four days.



No one has said anything controversial lately.

Katy

I've been looking for additional books on busty royals to share with you
all.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > It has gone rather quiet in the past four days.
>
> No one has said anything controversial lately.
>
> Katy
>
>

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> I've been looking for additional books on busty royals to share with
you
> all.


We admire and appreciate your diligent research, Bill.

Katy

I knew you would, Katy.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking for additional books on busty royals to share with
> you
> > all.
>
> We admire and appreciate your diligent research, Bill.
>
> Katy
>
>

Busty royals?? Isn't that sort of an oxymoron?? Of course, Queen Victoria
could have been said to have been sort of "buxom," I guess. :-)



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Email - jltournier@...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Bill Barber
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Where is everyone?



I've been looking for additional books on busty royals to share with you
all.

oregonkaty wrote:
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [email protected]
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > It has gone rather quiet in the past four days.
>
> No one has said anything controversial lately.
>
> Katy
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> It has gone rather quiet in the past four days.
>
........ and again.

Possible subjects:
My enquiry to the Borthwick leading to the possible PROOF of Lady
Lumley's parentage,
Starkey's series beng repeated,
The forthcoming anniversary of the Scarborough revolt,
Anything else you would like to discuss.