Questions
Questions
Re: Questions
From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2014, 19:34
Subject: Questions
Hi can anyone help?Having a discussion on the Real Richard webpage and there is some confusion as to Richard having the right to being Lord Protector.They seem to think thatit was a council which he ignored and are stating Mancini and the Crowland Roll? I have said he was given the Protectorship by Edward but don't have any references just what I have learned on the Society.Thanks Kathryn x
Re: Questions
Cairo Central?
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: 12 February 2014 21:26
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Questions
The Real Richard lot are pretty anti from what I can gather. I've never been on it but I know people who say they always seem to think the worst of Richard.
I can't refute them offhand though.
Liz
From:
"kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 February 2014,
19:34
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Questions
Hi can anyone help?Having a discussion on the Real Richard webpage and there is
some confusion as to Richard having the right to being Lord Protector.They seem
to think thatit was a council which he ignored and are stating Mancini and the
Crowland Roll? I have said he was given the Protectorship by Edward but don't
have any references just what I have learned on the Society.Thanks Kathryn x
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
Karen
Re: Questions
On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 14:39, "Ragged_staff@..." <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
That's a shame, Kathryn! There's lots of openminded discussion in that group from people with all kinds of points of view and from all sorts of perspectives! We do have members who aren't staunch Richard supporters, and others who are. And still others who fall somewhere in between.Stephen is, I believe, trying to say that the members of the group are 'in denial' but, despite my asking him to explain just what we're 'in denial' about, he's yet to answer!When I started the group, it was an attempt (successful so far) to open the conversation about Richard a little wider, and to offer a safe place for anyone interested in his life and times to discuss sometimes controversial matters in a respectful and welcoming atmosphere. We do refer to sources quite a bit, rather than gut feeling or what we once read in a novel, though (of course!) we do discuss Ricardian literature as well. This idea the group is somehow 'anti-Richard' is utterly baffling to me. As has been mentioned several times, we represent those who wish Richard could be allowed to be who he was, whatever that turns out to be, rather than what some might wish him to have been, and that includes both the 'saint' and the 'monster' Why anyone is threatened by this (and some of the responses to the group do suggest that) I can't begin to guess!Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of Richard! There are a lot of us on the same journey, not all walking in step.
Karen
Re: Questions
I so agree&.It is enlightening to hear all sides, even if someone might not personally think it is relevant, true, or whatever. These are things to be studied, and with so many details not filled in, the more we know about all the individuals involved, the better we will be. It is a convoluted time with inter-marriages, and internecine hostility, double crossing and outright warfare, as well as histories and plays written far after the losers had gone into the ground. For me, each snippet, conjecture or finding is a gem. I hate it when someone drops off. And I dislike it when someone's opinion or suggestion is ruled to out and out bunk. That is hurtful. There are times when I feel we are having a mini-WOTR, and WE are on the Plantagenet side!!!
Pamela Bain| President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
TBPE Registered Firm Engineering Number: F-1712
TBPLS Firm Surveying Number: 10020900
www.bmbi.com
7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Questions
Well said Karen, I miss you on here. Things do need to be challenged not idealised and the day they can't be challenged and indeed properly defended we might as well give up. Life is shades of grey, not black and white (no pun intended) and debate, as long as it's informed, should be welcomed. Keeps us on our toes. Sorry Stephen! H
On Thursday, 13 February 2014, 14:39, "Ragged_staff@..." <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
That's a shame, Kathryn! There's lots of openminded discussion in that group from people with all kinds of points of view and from all sorts of perspectives! We do have members who aren't staunch Richard supporters, and others who are. And still others who fall somewhere in between.
Stephen is, I believe, trying to say that the members of the group are 'in denial' but, despite my asking him to explain just what we're 'in denial' about, he's yet to answer!
When I started the group, it was an attempt (successful so far) to open the conversation about Richard a little wider, and to offer a safe place for anyone interested in his life and times to discuss sometimes controversial matters in a respectful and welcoming atmosphere. We do refer to sources quite a bit, rather than gut feeling or what we once read in a novel, though (of course!) we do discuss Ricardian literature as well. This idea the group is somehow 'anti-Richard' is utterly baffling to me. As has been mentioned several times, we represent those who wish Richard could be allowed to be who he was, whatever that turns out to be, rather than what some might wish him to have been, and that includes both the 'saint' and the 'monster' Why anyone is threatened by this (and some of the responses to the group do suggest that) I can't begin to guess!
Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of Richard! There are a lot of us on the same journey, not all walking in step.
Karen
Re: Questions
Kathryn wrote:
"Hi can anyone help?Having a discussion on the Real Richard webpage and there is some confusion as to Richard having the right to being Lord Protector.They seem to think thatit was a council which he ignored and are stating Mancini and the Crowland Roll? I have said he was given the Protectorship by Edward but don't have any references just what I have learned on the Society."
Carol responds:
Croyland says (obliquely, as always): "On his death-bed he [Edward IV] added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose."
To me, that passage clearly suggests that the unspecified codicils, or one of them, appointed Richard as Protector. The tragic consequences must be the deposition of Edward IV and what the chronicler/continuator considered to be Richard's usurpation since he never accused Richard of killing his nephews. Perhaps Richard's own death in battle is part of the "ensuing tragedy." In any case, he blames the tragedy on the codicils. What else could they contain except the appointment of Richard as Protector?
On a side note, not one Tudor chronicler (including More and Vergil) denies that Richard was made Protector in Edward's will. All of them make a point of stating that he was (with the implication that Edward trusted him and he betrayed that trust). In any case, even though the codicil was destroyed, almost certainly by Tudor supporters (for reasons similar to the destruction of Titulus Regius and, it appears, the minutes of Richard's council meetings as Protector), there is no reason to doubt that he was, indeed, appointed Protector in Richard's will, an appointment confirmed by the council after he returned to London with his rightful charge, Edward V.
Carol
Re: Questions
Kathryn x
Re: Questions
I tried to be open minded about certain people and the groups but they don't seem to feel the same way. Liz
From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 13:51
Subject: Re: Questions
Hi Liz,Thanks for your reply.I have come to the same conclusion and left the group.Kathryn x
Re: Questions
Can't say I blame you. I've never tried to join because I have
friends who've tried it and find it just too much. I did try to join
a FB group run by one particular author and was booted out after one day despite
the fact that I only made about one, perfectly innocuous comment! I now
appear to be blocked and have absolutely no idea what I said (apart form "hello
and thanks for adding me" ) to upset her.
I
tried to be open minded about certain people and the groups but they don't seem
to feel the same way.
Liz
From:
"kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February
2014, 13:51
Subject: Re:
Questions
Hi Liz,Thanks for your reply.I have come to the same
conclusion and left the group.Kathryn x
Re: Questions
From: "Ragged_staff@..." <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 14:39
Subject: RE: Questions
That's a shame, Kathryn! There's lots of openminded discussion in that group from people with all kinds of points of view and from all sorts of perspectives! We do have members who aren't staunch Richard supporters, and others who are. And still others who fall somewhere in between.Stephen is, I believe, trying to say that the members of the group are 'in denial' but, despite my asking him to explain just what we're 'in denial' about, he's yet to answer!When I started the group, it was an attempt (successful so far) to open the conversation about Richard a little wider, and to offer a safe place for anyone interested in his life and times to discuss sometimes controversial matters in a respectful and welcoming atmosphere. We do refer to sources quite a bit, rather than gut feeling or what we once read in a novel, though (of course!) we do discuss Ricardian literature as well. This idea the group is somehow 'anti-Richard' is utterly baffling to me. As has been mentioned several times, we represent those who wish Richard could be allowed to be who he was, whatever that turns out to be, rather than what some might wish him to have been, and that includes both the 'saint' and the 'monster' Why anyone is threatened by this (and some of the responses to the group do suggest that) I can't begin to guess!Anyway, good luck with your pursuit of Richard! There are a lot of us on the same journey, not all walking in step.
Karen
Re: Questions
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 20:47
Subject: Re: Questions
It's their loss, Liz. Sandra =^..^= From: liz williams Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:44 PM To: Subject: Re: Questions Can't say I blame you. I've never tried to join because I have friends who've tried it and find it just too much. I did try to join a FB group run by one particular author and was booted out after one day despite the fact that I only made about one, perfectly innocuous comment! I now appear to be blocked and have absolutely no idea what I said (apart form "hello and thanks for adding me" ) to upset her.
I tried to be open minded about certain people and the groups but they don't seem to feel the same way. Liz From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 13:51
Subject: Re: Questions
Hi Liz,Thanks for your reply.I have come to the same conclusion and left the group.Kathryn x
Re: Questions
It is - and I'm not talking about me, but the others who were in the
same boat. Several of us were excited at the thought of a group that
might actually not be partisan and where we could all get along but it didn't
work out for God knows what reason. Someone actually suggested a
reason but I'm not sure if it's true so I won't repeat it here.
Liz
From:
SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February
2014, 20:47
Subject: Re:
Questions
It's their loss, Liz.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: liz williams
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Questions
Can't say I blame you. I've never tried to join because I have
friends who've tried it and find it just too much. I did try to join
a FB group run by one particular author and was booted out after one day despite
the fact that I only made about one, perfectly innocuous comment! I now
appear to be blocked and have absolutely no idea what I said (apart form "hello
and thanks for adding me" ) to upset her.
I
tried to be open minded about certain people and the groups but they don't seem
to feel the same way.
Liz
From:
"kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February
2014, 13:51
Subject: Re:
Questions
Hi Liz,Thanks for your reply.I have come to the same
conclusion and left the group.Kathryn x
Re: Questions
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 22:00
Subject: Re: Questions
Liz, these anti-Richard groups are very school playground. The sort of bullies that lie in wait for the unwary on the way home. It's not open debate, it's spite for the sake of it. Sorry, but I find them close to being internet trolls. We may not be polite about Henry, but then we don't pretend to be anything but Ricardians. We certainly don't lure people in by flying Henry's badges and claiming to seek the truth' about him hell, we know THAT already! He lived long enough for his real character to be obvious to one and all. And no one went around afterward carefully destroying everything they did not want to be remembered. His activities are there for all to see. Warts and all. We seek the truth about Richard because we know he has been wronged by history, and because Henry saw to it that precious documents and information was sent to oblivion. Warts were forced upon Richard, who certainly did not have them before Bosworth. Sandra =^..^= From: liz williams Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:10 PM To: Subject: Re: Questions It is - and I'm not talking about me, but the others who were in the same boat. Several of us were excited at the thought of a group that might actually not be partisan and where we could all get along but it didn't work out for God knows what reason. Someone actually suggested a reason but I'm not sure if it's true so I won't repeat it here. Liz From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 20:47
Subject: Re: Questions
It's their loss, Liz. Sandra =^..^= From: liz williams Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:44 PM To: Subject: Re: Questions Can't say I blame you. I've never tried to join because I have friends who've tried it and find it just too much. I did try to join a FB group run by one particular author and was booted out after one day despite the fact that I only made about one, perfectly innocuous comment! I now appear to be blocked and have absolutely no idea what I said (apart form "hello and thanks for adding me" ) to upset her.
I tried to be open minded about certain people and the groups but they don't seem to feel the same way. Liz From: "kathryng56@..." <kathryng56@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 13:51
Subject: Re: Questions
Hi Liz,Thanks for your reply.I have come to the same conclusion and left the group.Kathryn x
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
Liz, I believe you are absolutely right!
I have no experience of other Richard sites, but I have been on groups that can round on you for no reason at all. I have no interest in any group that can turn savage.
My guess is that someone recognised you from this or another Richard group and informed the moderator that you are unlikely to hold the same opinions as them. You would then have been banned "as a potential troublemaker" or some such nonsense to cover up that they don't feel confident enough in their own opinions and beliefs to be able to defend them.
I really am so sorry you have experienced this, I have myself though - But with subjects other than Richard. I actually thank you for the warning and I will not be going exploring other Richard groups then, now I know what some of them can be like!
Tony
Re: Questions
cheersKaren C
Re: Questions
cheersKaren C
Re: Questions
cheersKaren C
Re: Questions
Tony, basically that is exactly what I was told had happened. I was oriignally given another excuse which turned out not to be true. Liz
From: "group_mail_address@..." <group_mail_address@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2014, 23:24
Subject: Re: Questions
Liz, I believe you are absolutely right!
I have no experience of other Richard sites, but I have been on groups that can round on you for no reason at all. I have no interest in any group that can turn savage.
My guess is that someone recognised you from this or another Richard group and informed the moderator that you are unlikely to hold the same opinions as them. You would then have been banned "as a potential troublemaker" or some such nonsense to cover up that they don't feel confident enough in their own opinions and beliefs to be able to defend them.
I really am so sorry you have experienced this, I have myself though - But with subjects other than Richard. I actually thank you for the warning and I will not be going exploring other Richard groups then, now I know what some of them can be like!
Tony
Re: Questions
Karen, It was most certainly not explained to me like that at all and in fact she has never explained anything as the group was only open for about a week, if that, and then it suddenly shut down without a word to us. I was told originally (not by the owner but by someone who had been in contact with her) that she was "taking a rest" from Facebook completely and had even closed her own profile. That was clearly not the case as she was back on there within a couple of days. Someone else then said that the group was shut down because the owner was criticised by certain people who didn't like us being on there, which is what Istill believe to be the case. If there was expansion into another group, surely she would have said "By the way I'm closing this group because it's too similar to X"? Also, why start the group in the first place if it covered the same ground as another she was involved in? No, being asked for a source isn't bullying but it seems that anyone who dares to suggest on some groups that Richard might actually have been a bit of a good guy compared to his contemporaries is constantly treated with hostility, especially by a few posters who I have myself seen in action elsewhere and I think you will indeed find they are on RR . I guess you won't be inviting me to join it but that's fine I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "historical debate" and being howled down by several people or even blocked because one thinks that Richard was more good than bad. I find it very hard to believe that you didn't know "such groups existed" even if you don't think you participate in them. I used to be pretty moderate and thought that many people exaggerated the hostility but I've seen it for myself over recent months even though it's not generally directed at me. Personally I'm not interested in a whitewash at all but yes it is indeed the case that your "truth" is not the same as mine or indeed many other people's. Liz
From: "Ragged_staff@..." <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 February 2014, 1:57
Subject: Re: Questions
Hi Liz and Sandra Liz, the group you're referring to was closed down by the author you're referring to. Rather than run two separate groups that cover the same ground, she has expanded the brief of an already existing one. There's nothing sinister about it and this has been explained to you before. Sandra, I had no idea groups like you describe existed! I thought, at first, it was a reference to RR? but rereading it, I realise no-one could be quite that mistaken. With a lot of Ricardians not engaging in the wider history community, I guess they might not be used to the rigours of historical debate, and mistake disagreement, or a request for sources, as hostility. Being asked for a source to back up a claim isn't 'bullying'. I am utterly intrigued by your conviction there's a shadowy group of 'Henry' fans who have nothing better to do with their time than lure hapless Ricardians into their groups so they can 'bully' them! I' ;ll be sure to keep an eye out for that. You're right about one thing. Richard has been wronged by history. A lot of Ricardians aren't interested in compounding that wrong by contributing to a complete whitewash. It may be your 'truth', but it isn't everyone's.
cheers Karen C
Re: Questions
Similarly, I don’t know of anyone who wants to “whitewash” Richard – merely to reveal the truth.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: 14 February 2014 12:45
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Questions
Karen,
It was most certainly not explained to me like that at all and in fact she has never explained anything as the group was only open for about a week, if that, and then it suddenly shut down without a word to us. I was told originally (not by the owner but by someone who had been in contact with her) that she was "taking a rest" from Facebook completely and had even closed her own profile. That was clearly not the case as she was back on there within a couple of days. Someone else then said that the group was shut down because the owner was criticised by certain people who didn't like us being on there, which is what Istill believe to be the case. If there was expansion into another group, surely she would have said "By the way I'm closing this group because it's too similar to X"? Also, why start the group in the first place if it covered the same ground as another she was involved in?
No, being asked for a source isn't bullying but it seems that anyone who dares to suggest on some groups that Richard might actually have been a bit of a good guy compared to his contemporaries is constantly treated with hostility, especially by a few posters who I have myself seen in action elsewhere and I think you will indeed find they are on RR . I guess you won't be inviting me to join it but that's fine
I'd also like to point out that there is a difference between "historical debate" and being howled down by several people or even blocked because one thinks that Richard was more good than bad. I find it very hard to believe that you didn't know "such groups existed" even if you don't think you participate in them. I used to be pretty moderate and thought that many people exaggerated the hostility but I've seen it for myself over recent months even though it's not generally directed at me.
Personally I'm not interested in a whitewash at all but yes it is indeed the case that your "truth" is not the same as mine or indeed many other people's.
Liz
From: "Ragged_staff@..."
<Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 February 2014,
1:57
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Questions
Hi Liz and Sandra
Liz, the group you're referring to was closed down by the author you're referring to. Rather than run two separate groups that cover the same ground, she has expanded the brief of an already existing one. There's nothing sinister about it and this has been explained to you before.
Sandra, I had no idea groups like you describe existed! I thought, at first, it was a reference to RR? but rereading it, I realise no-one could be quite that mistaken. With a lot of Ricardians not engaging in the wider history community, I guess they might not be used to the rigours of historical debate, and mistake disagreement, or a request for sources, as hostility. Being asked for a source to back up a claim isn't 'bullying'. I am utterly intrigued by your conviction there's a shadowy group of 'Henry' fans who have nothing better to do with their time than lure hapless Ricardians into their groups so they can 'bully' them! I' ;ll be sure to keep an eye out for that.
You're right about one thing. Richard has been wronged by history. A lot of Ricardians aren't interested in compounding that wrong by contributing to a complete whitewash. It may be your 'truth', but it isn't everyone's.
cheers
Karen C
Re: Questions
cheersKaren C
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
Karen, if there was an explanation posted on there not one person I know who was a member saw it! We were all dumbfounded and as I already said, why open the group at all if she realised within 3 daysit was the same as another? Everything was tickety-boo, we were all getting on, then suddenly it was gone and I certainly didn't receive any notification from that group at all that there had been such a post because I specifically checked. As for the copy and pasting, yes it's happened to me too when at least one post of mine, made on a closed group incidentally (Ricardian) was cut and pasted onto another, open, group (not yours) and I was abused. By the way I wasn't referring to members of RR being abused on other groups because I haven't seen it. I confine myself to 3 or 4 groups because when I have ventured elsewhere the abuse all seemed to be going in one direction - firmly towards those who are "pro" Richard. In fact all such behaviour you refer to below has only been seen by me going in one direction. You and I must agree to disagree and if you don't see a problem with having anti Richard people on a "Ricardian" group then we will continue to do so so I think it's best we leave it at that. Liz
From: "Ragged_staff@..." <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 February 2014, 13:47
Subject: RE: Questions
Liz An explanation was posted on the group before it closed. If you missed that, there's nothing I can do about it. I fully accept (and have stated before) we have a couple of members in RR who are quite hostile towards Richard. I don't see this as a problem, any more than it's a problem to have members who are decidedly in favour of Richard. That's what 'opening out the conversation' means. If you wish to join the group, please feel free! It was open for some time after it was created, and had to be closed due to the behaviour of a small minority who thought it was such tremendous fun to copy and paste posts and comments to other groups, in order to take them out of context and insult our members. Yes, there is, indeed, a difference between the two things you state. Far too many members of RR have been subjected to that in other groups. I am very pleased you recognise this! No-one is blocked because they think Richard is good. They are blocked for the same sorts of reasons anyone is blocked from a group for trolling, joining simply to be as offensive and disruptive as they can be, and cutting and pasting posts and comments (see above). I'm wondering how you can know what my 'truth' is, as I haven't yet quite worked it out! If you're at all interested in discussing this in a civil manner, I am more than happy to. The extreme hostility that greets anyone who suggests that Richard wasn't perfect, that he may well have done things that weren't perfect and he wasn't a sinless saint, is breathtaking to observe and experience. I also wonder how you know whether or not I'm aware that groups described by Sandra exist or not, that is groups of 'spiteful' 'Tudorites' who lure Ricardians in with false colours in order to 'bully' them. I certainly wasn't aware such groups existed at all! I'm glad the hostility isn't dire cted at you. As one of the people the hostility is directed at, I can tell you it isn't much fun.
cheers Karen C
Re: Questions
Re: Questions
cheersKaren
Re: Questions
Kathryn here .I don't know why you are pestering Liz for giving me an opinion to which I agreed.I was genuinely trying to be helpful on the Real Richard site and although being a definite Richardian I am not very knowledgable on the subject.I joined various Richard sites because someone I knew had too.When I suggested that some sources were not reliable and stated that contacting the Richard III Society directly would be a good idea.It was pointed out to me that the society might also be biased.That is when I decided to leave the group.I hope you accept this as the matter being closed.I will not be making anymore comments regarding this.
kathryn x
Re: Questions
Hi Karen,,
Kathryn here .I don't know why you are pestering Liz for giving
me an opinion to which I agreed.I was genuinely trying to be helpful on the Real
Richard site and although being a definite Richardian I am not very knowledgable
on the subject.I joined various Richard sites because someone I knew had
too.When I suggested that some sources were not reliable and stated that
contacting the Richard III Society directly would be a good idea.It was pointed
out to me that the society might also be biased.That is when I decided to leave
the group.I hope you accept this as the matter being closed.I will not be making
anymore comments regarding this.
kathryn x
Re: Questions
I am closing this thread now, it has ran its course and going around in circles now.
Regards,
Moderator
On 15 Feb 2014, at 13:10, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
I feel I must add my piece here. Karen, as the specific abuse' to which you have referred several times was from me, not from Liz or Kathryn, I hope to make amends. Please do not imagine I was referring to your group with my comments. I was making a generalisation about certain groups I had visited. The first I knew of you was in recent days with this thread, and I had experienced these other groups well before then. If you feel so very strongly that I did single you out, it was an unwitting transgression on my part. My reference (which certainly did not contain any personal animosity or threats!) was to anti-Richard groups', which you say you are not, and I accept what you say. Why would I not? Certainly I am not in a position to argue with you as I have never visited your group, have no idea what goes on there and know nothing about you. I do not intend to name the groups I did have in mind, and I too am happy to close this thread, but I do not like to think I have upset or offended you, or that Liz and Kathryn are taking flak that should in fairness be directed at me. The last thing we need is a barney' between like-minded folk, so please accept this well-meant olive branch. Sandra From: kathryng56@... Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:57 AM To: Subject: Re: Questions
Hi Karen,,
Kathryn here .I don't know why you are pestering Liz for giving
me an opinion to which I agreed.I was genuinely trying to be helpful on the Real
Richard site and although being a definite Richardian I am not very knowledgable
on the subject.I joined various Richard sites because someone I knew had
too.When I suggested that some sources were not reliable and stated that
contacting the Richard III Society directly would be a good idea.It was pointed
out to me that the society might also be biased.That is when I decided to leave
the group.I hope you accept this as the matter being closed.I will not be making
anymore comments regarding this.
kathryn x
Re: Questions
Stephen wrote:
"Similarly, I don't know of anyone who wants to whitewash Richard merely to reveal the truth."
Carol responds:
I do know of at least one person who refuses to acknowledge that Richard had a single fault, but she's not a member of this group, more a follower of Sir Clement Markham. She had a Yahoo group for a while, but it disappeared years ago. But such people are vastly outnumbered by those who refuse to question More and Shakespeare--or, among scholars, those who refuse to question Vergil, Croyland, and Mancini.
As for Facebook, I have no idea what's out there. I can't follow the format. It's worse than Yahoo--and much too public for my taste.
Carol
Re: Questions
On Saturday, 15 February 2014, 14:29, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
To all concerned:
I am closing this thread now, it has ran its course and going around in circles now.
Regards,
Moderator
On 15 Feb 2014, at 13:10, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
I feel I must add my piece here. Karen, as the specific abuse' to which you have referred several times was from me, not from Liz or Kathryn, I hope to make amends. Please do not imagine I was referring to your group with my comments. I was making a generalisation about certain groups I had visited. The first I knew of you was in recent days with this thread, and I had experienced these other groups well before then. If you feel so very strongly that I did single you out, it was an unwitting transgression on my part. My reference (which certainly did not contain any personal animosity or threats!) was to anti-Richard groups', which you say you are not, and I accept what you say. Why would I not? Certainly I am not in a position to argue with you as I have never visited your group, have no idea what goes on there and know nothing about you. I do not intend to name the groups I did have in mind, and I too am happy to close this thread, but I do not like to think I have upset or offended you, or that Liz and Kathryn are taking flak that should in fairness be directed at me. The last thing we need is a barney' between like-minded folk, so please accept this well-meant olive branch. Sandra From: kathryng56@... Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:57 AM To: Subject: Re: Questions Hi Karen,,
Kathryn here .I don't know why you are pestering Liz for giving me an opinion to which I agreed.I was genuinely trying to be helpful on the Real Richard site and although being a definite Richardian I am not very knowledgable on the subject.I joined various Richard sites because someone I knew had too.When I suggested that some sources were not reliable and stated that contacting the Richard III Society directly would be a good idea.It was pointed out to me that the society might also be biased.That is when I decided to leave the group.I hope you accept this as the matter being closed.I will not be making anymore comments regarding this.
kathryn x
Re: Questions
Mary wrote:
"Agree Stephen. The people on this forum are interested in justice for Richard's reputation. I enjoy reading posts by Marie, who really has studied the primary sources, when she refutes the "facts" put forward by the traditionalists. However, I am sure that even Marie, who has more knowledge than most of us put together, would never say that something was a fact unless she had all the evidence. That is why it really annoys me when people say that Richard executed Hastings without a trial. We don't know, there is no evidence either way. "
Carol responds:
We do know, however, that Mancini was wrong in saying that Richard at the time held no office that would authorize him to order an execution. Setting aside the question of Richard's motives and Hastings' guilt or innocence, Richard unquestionably had the authority to order his execution for treason not only as Protector (against whom the treason was apparently or ostensibly directed) but as Constable of England for life. Those who say he acted illegally are apparently unaware both of what constituted treason at that time and of the duties of the Lord Constable. (Mancini was, in addition, unaware that Richard held any office at the time.)
Carol
