Mistakes
Mistakes
2004-06-07 22:50:54
Just started what looks to be an impressive new book by Hugh Thomas Rivers
of Gold, about the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
Well I hope it is impressive, but it won't be if the mistake on page 15 is
repeated.
One possible husband for isabel, future Queen of Castille and Spain, was
'Richard, Duke of York, Shakespeare's future murderosu monarch Richard III'.
Hum! Almost every word in that phrase is wrong, except Richard!
Richard was of course never Duke of York, even when king, but Duke of
Gloucester.
Isabella wrote to Richard at the time of his coronation a letter in which
she mentioned having been proposed as a possible bride for Edward, and had
been rejected, but never as a possible bride for Richard. Anyway, she did
not become of political importance until 1467 when she suddenly found
herself the heiress of Castille. Now of course this was 3 years after the
eldest scion of the House of York had rejected her, so it seems impossible
to me that she would have considered a younger brother of the English king
who was only 15 at her elevation.
Interesting coda. She was always number one in the joint monarchy with
Ferdinando, and nothing was done without her approval. And the Spanish court
of the dual monarchy was peripatetic, thougt to be the main reason for the
lack of internal conflict in Spain at the time. Similar in nature to the
court of Henry II, whose main problems inside his empire came from his own
family!
Paul
of Gold, about the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
Well I hope it is impressive, but it won't be if the mistake on page 15 is
repeated.
One possible husband for isabel, future Queen of Castille and Spain, was
'Richard, Duke of York, Shakespeare's future murderosu monarch Richard III'.
Hum! Almost every word in that phrase is wrong, except Richard!
Richard was of course never Duke of York, even when king, but Duke of
Gloucester.
Isabella wrote to Richard at the time of his coronation a letter in which
she mentioned having been proposed as a possible bride for Edward, and had
been rejected, but never as a possible bride for Richard. Anyway, she did
not become of political importance until 1467 when she suddenly found
herself the heiress of Castille. Now of course this was 3 years after the
eldest scion of the House of York had rejected her, so it seems impossible
to me that she would have considered a younger brother of the English king
who was only 15 at her elevation.
Interesting coda. She was always number one in the joint monarchy with
Ferdinando, and nothing was done without her approval. And the Spanish court
of the dual monarchy was peripatetic, thougt to be the main reason for the
lack of internal conflict in Spain at the time. Similar in nature to the
court of Henry II, whose main problems inside his empire came from his own
family!
Paul
Re: Mistakes
2004-06-07 23:20:36
--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Just started what looks to be an impressive new book by Hugh Thomas
Rivers
> of Gold, about the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
> Well I hope it is impressive, but it won't be if the mistake on
page 15 is
> repeated.
> One possible husband for isabel, future Queen of Castille and
Spain, was
> 'Richard, Duke of York, Shakespeare's future murderosu monarch
Richard III'.
> Hum! Almost every word in that phrase is wrong, except Richard!
>
> Richard was of course never Duke of York, even when king, but Duke
of
> Gloucester.
> Isabella wrote to Richard at the time of his coronation a letter in
which
> she mentioned having been proposed as a possible bride for Edward,
and had
> been rejected, but never as a possible bride for Richard.
Interesting suggestions have been made that Isabel's* ambassador to
Richard, Galfrido de Sasiola (that was his name, wasn't it?) was
privately proposing a new marraige alliance involving Edward of
Middleham. This is supported by Sasiola's starting by meeting Queen
Anne at Windsor, and travelling with her to join Richard at Warwick -
mothers traditionally involved in their children's marriages.
* There is, as I recall, no mention of Fernando in the English
records of this embassy
Anyway, she did
> not become of political importance until 1467 when she suddenly
found
> herself the heiress of Castille. Now of course this was 3 years
after the
> eldest scion of the House of York had rejected her, so it seems
impossible
> to me that she would have considered a younger brother of the
English king
> who was only 15 at her elevation.
>
> Interesting coda. She was always number one in the joint monarchy
with
> Ferdinando, and nothing was done without her approval.
Or (as I learned in my a level Spanish:-
Tanto manda, mando tanto
Isabel como Fernando.
(Or, in a nutshell: Isabel commands as much as Ferdinand).
Marie
And the Spanish court
> of the dual monarchy was peripatetic, thougt to be the main reason
for the
> lack of internal conflict in Spain at the time. Similar in nature
to the
> court of Henry II, whose main problems inside his empire came from
his own
> family!
> Paul
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> Just started what looks to be an impressive new book by Hugh Thomas
Rivers
> of Gold, about the Spanish conquest of the Americas.
> Well I hope it is impressive, but it won't be if the mistake on
page 15 is
> repeated.
> One possible husband for isabel, future Queen of Castille and
Spain, was
> 'Richard, Duke of York, Shakespeare's future murderosu monarch
Richard III'.
> Hum! Almost every word in that phrase is wrong, except Richard!
>
> Richard was of course never Duke of York, even when king, but Duke
of
> Gloucester.
> Isabella wrote to Richard at the time of his coronation a letter in
which
> she mentioned having been proposed as a possible bride for Edward,
and had
> been rejected, but never as a possible bride for Richard.
Interesting suggestions have been made that Isabel's* ambassador to
Richard, Galfrido de Sasiola (that was his name, wasn't it?) was
privately proposing a new marraige alliance involving Edward of
Middleham. This is supported by Sasiola's starting by meeting Queen
Anne at Windsor, and travelling with her to join Richard at Warwick -
mothers traditionally involved in their children's marriages.
* There is, as I recall, no mention of Fernando in the English
records of this embassy
Anyway, she did
> not become of political importance until 1467 when she suddenly
found
> herself the heiress of Castille. Now of course this was 3 years
after the
> eldest scion of the House of York had rejected her, so it seems
impossible
> to me that she would have considered a younger brother of the
English king
> who was only 15 at her elevation.
>
> Interesting coda. She was always number one in the joint monarchy
with
> Ferdinando, and nothing was done without her approval.
Or (as I learned in my a level Spanish:-
Tanto manda, mando tanto
Isabel como Fernando.
(Or, in a nutshell: Isabel commands as much as Ferdinand).
Marie
And the Spanish court
> of the dual monarchy was peripatetic, thougt to be the main reason
for the
> lack of internal conflict in Spain at the time. Similar in nature
to the
> court of Henry II, whose main problems inside his empire came from
his own
> family!
> Paul
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes
2004-06-08 01:43:19
Or (as I learned in my a level Spanish:-
Tanto manda, mando tanto
Isabel como Fernando.
(Or, in a nutshell: Isabel commands as much as Ferdinand).
Marie
=================================
Or Tanto monta, monta tanto
Isabel como Fernando.
Almost the same thing: Isabel and Fernando are of equal value.
According to Townsend Miller's "Castles and the Crown", it was Fernando
who needed this assurance, not Isabel
When Fernando finally arrived at Valladolid to marry Isabel, he was made
to sign a set of Capitulations, which basically assured Isabel of
command over her own destiny. Then, in 1474, when Enrique died
suddenly, Isabel had herself crowned at Segovia, with the Sword of
Justice held before her. Fernando was in Aragon at the time, and came
rushing back ever so quickly, very upset that Isabel had usurped this
male prerogative of the sword, and setting off a conflagration between
the two (Miller calls it their only public argument), which, in the end,
produced a modification of the Capitulations and the motto(s) quoted
above.
The Catholic Kings were very good at marketing themselves, from the very
beginning promoting the image of normalcy and progress, and, as they
went on, coming up with a heap of visual images to advertise themselves,
one of the most common pairs being an intermingling of arrows ("Flechas"
for Fernando) and the yoke ("yugo" for "Ysabel").
Fernando was a gifted field commander, too. Like Napoleon at his height
(no puns or paradoxes intended), he knew all his men and their
characters, and shared hardships with them. And he was one of the best
stage managers you'll ever want (or not want) in the political theater.
Like Napoleon, he was popular with the army, and they'd do anything for
him. Isabel ended up getting her money's worth out of her man (though
he also played the adultery field very well, and had a number of
illegitimate children, one of whom made Bishop before the age of 15).
Not sure, but I believe that another of his children was a noted beauty,
Juana of Aragon (http://www.lyons.co.uk/A4H/bigc/Joanna.htm), who was
based in Italy.
Maria
elena@...
Tanto manda, mando tanto
Isabel como Fernando.
(Or, in a nutshell: Isabel commands as much as Ferdinand).
Marie
=================================
Or Tanto monta, monta tanto
Isabel como Fernando.
Almost the same thing: Isabel and Fernando are of equal value.
According to Townsend Miller's "Castles and the Crown", it was Fernando
who needed this assurance, not Isabel
When Fernando finally arrived at Valladolid to marry Isabel, he was made
to sign a set of Capitulations, which basically assured Isabel of
command over her own destiny. Then, in 1474, when Enrique died
suddenly, Isabel had herself crowned at Segovia, with the Sword of
Justice held before her. Fernando was in Aragon at the time, and came
rushing back ever so quickly, very upset that Isabel had usurped this
male prerogative of the sword, and setting off a conflagration between
the two (Miller calls it their only public argument), which, in the end,
produced a modification of the Capitulations and the motto(s) quoted
above.
The Catholic Kings were very good at marketing themselves, from the very
beginning promoting the image of normalcy and progress, and, as they
went on, coming up with a heap of visual images to advertise themselves,
one of the most common pairs being an intermingling of arrows ("Flechas"
for Fernando) and the yoke ("yugo" for "Ysabel").
Fernando was a gifted field commander, too. Like Napoleon at his height
(no puns or paradoxes intended), he knew all his men and their
characters, and shared hardships with them. And he was one of the best
stage managers you'll ever want (or not want) in the political theater.
Like Napoleon, he was popular with the army, and they'd do anything for
him. Isabel ended up getting her money's worth out of her man (though
he also played the adultery field very well, and had a number of
illegitimate children, one of whom made Bishop before the age of 15).
Not sure, but I believe that another of his children was a noted beauty,
Juana of Aragon (http://www.lyons.co.uk/A4H/bigc/Joanna.htm), who was
based in Italy.
Maria
elena@...
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes
2004-06-08 08:52:34
--- In , "Maria" <elena@p...>
wrote:
>
> Or (as I learned in my a level Spanish:-
>
> Tanto manda, mando tanto
> Isabel como Fernando.
>
> (Or, in a nutshell: Isabel commands as much as Ferdinand).
>
> Marie
> =================================
> Or Tanto monta, monta tanto
> Isabel como Fernando.
>
> Almost the same thing: Isabel and Fernando are of equal value.
You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are connected,
except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
Marie
wrote:
>
> Or (as I learned in my a level Spanish:-
>
> Tanto manda, mando tanto
> Isabel como Fernando.
>
> (Or, in a nutshell: Isabel commands as much as Ferdinand).
>
> Marie
> =================================
> Or Tanto monta, monta tanto
> Isabel como Fernando.
>
> Almost the same thing: Isabel and Fernando are of equal value.
You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are connected,
except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes
2004-06-08 21:16:47
> You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
> told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
> and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are connected,
> except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
>
> Marie
como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
Pablito:-)
> told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
> and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are connected,
> except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
>
> Marie
como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
Pablito:-)
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes
2004-06-09 11:29:01
--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
> > told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
> > and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are
connected,
> > except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
> >
> > Marie
> como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
> Pablito:-)
esta (with acute accent on a), Pablito. But 'manda' is definitely the
version given us by my Spanish teacher - I am not misremembering.
Maria (with acute accent on i)
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
> > told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
> > and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are
connected,
> > except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
> >
> > Marie
> como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
> Pablito:-)
esta (with acute accent on a), Pablito. But 'manda' is definitely the
version given us by my Spanish teacher - I am not misremembering.
Maria (with acute accent on i)
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes - my mistake
2004-06-09 12:15:39
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book,
just
> > > told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was
Polish,
> > > and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are
> connected,
> > > except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
> > >
> > > Marie
> > como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
> > Pablito:-)
>
> esta (with acute accent on a), Pablito. But 'manda' is definitely
the
> version given us by my Spanish teacher - I am not misremembering.
> Maria (with acute accent on i)
Sorry, should have looked at context more before leaping in. The
second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
Marie
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > > You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book,
just
> > > told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was
Polish,
> > > and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are
> connected,
> > > except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
> > >
> > > Marie
> > como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
> > Pablito:-)
>
> esta (with acute accent on a), Pablito. But 'manda' is definitely
the
> version given us by my Spanish teacher - I am not misremembering.
> Maria (with acute accent on i)
Sorry, should have looked at context more before leaping in. The
second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes - my mistake
2004-06-09 12:31:31
> The
> second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
> not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
Yes I know. Was in a rush and not thinking properly!
Paul que es ingles! :-)
> second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
> not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
Yes I know. Was in a rush and not thinking properly!
Paul que es ingles! :-)
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes
2004-06-10 00:20:41
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>> You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
>>> told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
>>> and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are
> connected,
>>> except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
>>>
>>> Marie
>> como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
>> Pablito:-)
>
> esta (with acute accent on a), Pablito. But 'manda' is definitely the
> version given us by my Spanish teacher - I am not misremembering.
> Maria (with acute accent on i)
Thought it was sunjunctive after 'creo que'.
Pablito
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>>> You're probably right. I'm not sure it was ever in our book, just
>>> told us by our Spanish teacher - but she unfortunately was Polish,
>>> and a little crazy (I'm not suggesting the two things are
> connected,
>>> except that she'd been through a lot in the War).
>>>
>>> Marie
>> como la otra Maria es media española creo que este correcta.
>> Pablito:-)
>
> esta (with acute accent on a), Pablito. But 'manda' is definitely the
> version given us by my Spanish teacher - I am not misremembering.
> Maria (with acute accent on i)
Thought it was sunjunctive after 'creo que'.
Pablito
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes - my mistake
2004-06-10 00:28:17
> The
> second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
> not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
Yes I know. Was in a rush and not thinking properly!
Paul que es ingles! :-)
Just looked at my post and I did use ser. I think you were looking at my use
of subjunctive for 'I believe she is correct'. Shouldn't have apologised
after all!:-)
Paul
> second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
> not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
Yes I know. Was in a rush and not thinking properly!
Paul que es ingles! :-)
Just looked at my post and I did use ser. I think you were looking at my use
of subjunctive for 'I believe she is correct'. Shouldn't have apologised
after all!:-)
Paul
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes - my mistake
2004-06-10 10:01:49
--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > The
> > second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
> > not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
> Yes I know. Was in a rush and not thinking properly!
> Paul que es ingles! :-)
>
> Just looked at my post and I did use ser. I think you were looking
at my use
> of subjunctive for 'I believe she is correct'. Shouldn't have
apologised
> after all!:-)
> Paul
Sorry, Paul. When I thought about it again I had forgotten that
yout 'este' was not going with 'media espanola'; I sohuld have
checked.
Perhaps Maria can help us here. When I read your 'este' I must admit
I didn't think subjunctive - it just looked wrong and esta felt fine.
To me it still looks and feels wrong, even after your explanation, so
I have just checked my grammar book. It says you use subjunctives
with "verbs of thinking used interrogatively", and gives examples of
questions using creer followed by subjunctive. The implication would
be that in a statement creer is followed by indicative. This is
certainly what "feels right" to me (my Spanish was acquired a very
long time ago, so the grammar is more instinctive than academic at
this stage).
Yes, just confirmed it. Example given earlier of use of creer in
statements: 'Creo que el me engana' 'I think he is deceiving
me '(from 'enganar' to deceive). Sorry I can't do the accents on here.
Marie
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> > The
> > second problem is that the verb 'to be' to use with nationality is
> > not 'estar' but 'ser' : ie it should be "Maria es espanola".
> Yes I know. Was in a rush and not thinking properly!
> Paul que es ingles! :-)
>
> Just looked at my post and I did use ser. I think you were looking
at my use
> of subjunctive for 'I believe she is correct'. Shouldn't have
apologised
> after all!:-)
> Paul
Sorry, Paul. When I thought about it again I had forgotten that
yout 'este' was not going with 'media espanola'; I sohuld have
checked.
Perhaps Maria can help us here. When I read your 'este' I must admit
I didn't think subjunctive - it just looked wrong and esta felt fine.
To me it still looks and feels wrong, even after your explanation, so
I have just checked my grammar book. It says you use subjunctives
with "verbs of thinking used interrogatively", and gives examples of
questions using creer followed by subjunctive. The implication would
be that in a statement creer is followed by indicative. This is
certainly what "feels right" to me (my Spanish was acquired a very
long time ago, so the grammar is more instinctive than academic at
this stage).
Yes, just confirmed it. Example given earlier of use of creer in
statements: 'Creo que el me engana' 'I think he is deceiving
me '(from 'enganar' to deceive). Sorry I can't do the accents on here.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Mistakes - my mistake
2004-06-10 14:25:51
Perhaps Maria can help us here.
Marie
=============================
Hi all: sorry for this delay: it got busy at work, and I had the reading of my play the other day, and the aftermath this week. Will come back a play as soon as possible!
Maria
elena@...
Marie
=============================
Hi all: sorry for this delay: it got busy at work, and I had the reading of my play the other day, and the aftermath this week. Will come back a play as soon as possible!
Maria
elena@...
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.