Babes in the Wood
Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 13:09:45
Good God, Jess's question made me think about 'Babes in the Wood' and my imagination started racing& what if the folktale is based on true events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett family, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE& by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmund Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. Or perhaps the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one of them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies& Richard can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not.
Weird, isn't it?
Pansy
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 13:23:01
And even more weird because the much-derided Dening in the messages received in by his medium also had them taken to a wood - his wood was Epping Forest. H
On Thursday, 13 March 2014, 13:09, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Good God, Jess's question made me think about 'Babes in the Wood' and my imagination started racing& what if the folktale is based on true events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett family, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE& by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmund Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. Or perhaps the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one of them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies& Richard can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not.
Weird, isn't it?
Pansy
On Thursday, 13 March 2014, 13:09, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
Good God, Jess's question made me think about 'Babes in the Wood' and my imagination started racing& what if the folktale is based on true events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett family, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE& by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmund Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. Or perhaps the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one of them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies& Richard can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not.
Weird, isn't it?
Pansy
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 13:42:37
And let us not forget that Bucks was also MB's nephew....Eileen
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 15:51:33
It is actually positively creepy, Pansy. Shudders!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Babes in the Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 1:09:45 PM
Good God, Jess's question made me think about 'Babes in the Wood' and my imagination started racing& what if the folktale is based on true events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett family, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE& by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmund Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. Or perhaps the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one of them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies& Richard can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not.
Weird, isn't it?
Pansy
Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 15:54:08
Pansy wrote:
"//snip//...what if the folktale is based on true
events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not
only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children
in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in
the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited
by the Knyvett famil, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose
second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of
Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked)
UNCLE...by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmun Knyvett was married to
Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would
probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this
version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped,
conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid
two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story
further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but
abandoned them in the wood. O perhpas the children just managed to escape and
disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one on them died and the other one escaped,
only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just
disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies...Ricahrd can't prove they
were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or
not.
Weird, isn't it?"
Doug here:
Yes, it is.
Two questions though:
First, can a date be ascribed to the *origination*
of the "Babes in the Wood" tale?
Second, what are the odds the tale isn't just a
local variation on "Hansel and Gretel"? By which I mean, the German version is
heard and someone responds with "Well, *we've* got a story almost exactly like
that..." Again, much would depend on the fixing a date for the
story.
There's also the possibility (also depending
on its' age) that "Babes in the Wood" is based on an *intention* concerning the
boys that wasn't carried out because the "rescue" attempt failed. The intended
plan (having been somhow overheard?) then became a bed-time
story.
Or it *could* be just be a coincidence, which is
likely to be the "opinion" of "historians" - regardless of whether they've
looked into it or not.
At any rate, I second the "Weird, isn't
it?".
Doug
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 16:10:07
Yes Joan Stafford was Buckingham's aunt. She was also sister-in-law to John Talbot, Eleanor's half-brother (died 1473) and sister to Richard Stafford (died 1443) who was the first husband of Joan Cheddar of Stillington fame who married Eleanor's full brother John Viscount Lisle (died 1453).......agh!!!!! (Isabel, Joan's sister married Sir John Newton - his children married Stillington's grandchildren) Take another aspirin. H
On Thursday, 13 March 2014, 15:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: "//snip//...what if the folktale is based on true events? It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood). As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett famil, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion. Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE...by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister. Sir William's son Edmun Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events). So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. O perhpas the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one on them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on... Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies...Ricahrd can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not. Weird, isn't it?" Doug here: Yes, it is. Two questions though: First, can a date be ascribed to the *origination* of the "Babes in the Wood" tale? Second, what are the odds the tale isn't just a local variation on "Hansel and Gretel"? By which I mean, the German version is heard and someone responds with "Well, *we've* got a story almost exactly like that..." Again, much would depend on the fixing a date for the story. There's also the possibility (also depending on its' age) that "Babes in the Wood" is based on an *intention* concerning the boys that wasn't carried out because the "rescue" attempt failed. The intended plan (having been somhow overheard?) then became a bed-time story. Or it *could* be just be a coincidence, which is likely to be the "opinion" of "historians" - regardless of whether they've looked into it or not. At any rate, I second the "Weird, isn't it?". Doug
On Thursday, 13 March 2014, 15:54, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:
Pansy wrote: "//snip//...what if the folktale is based on true events? It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood). As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett famil, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion. Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE...by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister. Sir William's son Edmun Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events). So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. O perhpas the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one on them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on... Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies...Ricahrd can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not. Weird, isn't it?" Doug here: Yes, it is. Two questions though: First, can a date be ascribed to the *origination* of the "Babes in the Wood" tale? Second, what are the odds the tale isn't just a local variation on "Hansel and Gretel"? By which I mean, the German version is heard and someone responds with "Well, *we've* got a story almost exactly like that..." Again, much would depend on the fixing a date for the story. There's also the possibility (also depending on its' age) that "Babes in the Wood" is based on an *intention* concerning the boys that wasn't carried out because the "rescue" attempt failed. The intended plan (having been somhow overheard?) then became a bed-time story. Or it *could* be just be a coincidence, which is likely to be the "opinion" of "historians" - regardless of whether they've looked into it or not. At any rate, I second the "Weird, isn't it?". Doug
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 16:25:57
Jess, Hillary, Pansy, et al.,
My grandmother, born in London, used to tell us "fairy tales." When we were very young, these were benign and had happy endings. But when my brother and I were of that age where kids like "scary" stuff, she told of two little boys lured into a forest. How I wish I better recalled the name of the place (keep in mind I'm now 63...but something like "Wailing Wood" rings the proverbial bell, perhaps because it is an innately creepy name). My gran said she got the story from her own gran: two boys, there were, so it wasn't just Hansel and Gretel, retold.
Old stuff can be full of history, turned awry. From my mother, I got a song called "Nottamun Town"...her people came from Britain by way of Tennessee, and Nottamun is now considered a corruption of Nottingham; the last verse: "I sat on a hot cold frozen stone/Ten thousand surround me, yet I was alone/ I took off my hat for to keep my head warm./Ten thousand were drowned that never were born..." Stoke, anyone? Or even Bosworth...?
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:51 AM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
It is actually positively creepy, Pansy. Shudders! Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Babes in the Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 1:09:45 PM
Good God, Jess's question made me think about 'Babes in the Wood' and my imagination started racing& what if the folktale is based on true events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett family, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE& by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmund Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. Or perhaps the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one of them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies& Richard can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not.
Weird, isn't it?
Pansy
My grandmother, born in London, used to tell us "fairy tales." When we were very young, these were benign and had happy endings. But when my brother and I were of that age where kids like "scary" stuff, she told of two little boys lured into a forest. How I wish I better recalled the name of the place (keep in mind I'm now 63...but something like "Wailing Wood" rings the proverbial bell, perhaps because it is an innately creepy name). My gran said she got the story from her own gran: two boys, there were, so it wasn't just Hansel and Gretel, retold.
Old stuff can be full of history, turned awry. From my mother, I got a song called "Nottamun Town"...her people came from Britain by way of Tennessee, and Nottamun is now considered a corruption of Nottingham; the last verse: "I sat on a hot cold frozen stone/Ten thousand surround me, yet I was alone/ I took off my hat for to keep my head warm./Ten thousand were drowned that never were born..." Stoke, anyone? Or even Bosworth...?
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:51 AM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
It is actually positively creepy, Pansy. Shudders! Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Babes in the Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 1:09:45 PM
Good God, Jess's question made me think about 'Babes in the Wood' and my imagination started racing& what if the folktale is based on true events?
It's always been considered a bit peculiar (not only by me!) that the folktale is so geographically specific: that the children in the tale were taken to Griston Hall near Watton, Norfolk, and later died in the nearby Wayland Wood (or Wailing Wood).
As it happens, it seems Griston Hall was inherited by the Knyvett family, and at this time owned by Sir William Knyvett, whose second wife was Joan Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham's aunt. He was also one of Buckingham's councillors and took part in Buckingham's rebellion.
Buckingham, of course, was the boys' (wicked) UNCLE& by being married to Elizabeth Woodville's sister.
Sir William's son Edmund Knyvett was married to Eleanor Tyrrell, James Tyrrell's sister - so through his sister James would probably later have found out what happened (there's his connection to this version of events).
So what if Buckingham had the boys kidnapped, conveyed them to his kinsman's Griston Hall, then (as the folktale goes) paid two men to take them to the nearby woods and kill them? And, as the story further goes, the murderers couldn't bring themselves to kill the children but abandoned them in the wood. Or perhaps the children just managed to escape and disappeared in the wood. Or perhaps one of them died and the other one escaped, only to resurface as Perkin Warbeck later on...
Nobody knows whether they died in the wood or just disappeared. Nobody can produce the actual bodies& Richard can't prove they were murdered, and Henry can never be sure whether they're actually dead or not.
Weird, isn't it?
Pansy
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 19:38:49
Doug wrote:"First, can a date be ascribed to the *origination*
of the "Babes in the Wood" tale?"
I don't know. The first written version is the ballad by Norwich writer Thomas Millington in 1595, but it doesn't mention Wayland Wood by name at all and it basically reads like a sentimental but terrifying nursery rhyme:
I tried to look it up on Google Books, but all books seem to say that nobody knows when and where the folk legend came from and how it came to be associated with Wayland Wood and Griston Hall. Some make a rather feeble guess that the story might have something to do with a Thomas Grey, heir of Merton Hall (also near Wayland Wood), who died in 1566 at 11 years old in the care of Temperance Carew. But that was only one dead child, not two; the boy seems to have died some 30 miles away from Wayland Wood at Baconsthorpe Castle; and Temperance Carew would have been a wicked stepmother, not a wicked uncle!
(Hansel and Gretel did, of course, have *some* grains of truth in it, too: it seems to originate from the period of the Great Famine, when there were cases of cannibalism reported...)
Doug wrote:"There's also the possibility (also depending on its' age) that "Babes in the Wood" is based on an *intention* concerning the boys that wasn't carried out because the "rescue" attempt failed. The intended plan (having been somhow overheard?) then became a bed-time story."
True - but how to explain the specific locations?
Although, IF there were any truth to this story, I could also imagine that there might have been a legitimate plan to take the boys somewhere else - this was Dukes of Norfolk territory, after all (with Kenninghall only at a 15 miles' distance). But somehow they ended up in Buckingham's hands.
Pansy
I don't know. The first written version is the ballad by Norwich writer Thomas Millington in 1595, but it doesn't mention Wayland Wood by name at all and it basically reads like a sentimental but terrifying nursery rhyme:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19361/19361-h/19361-h.htm
I tried to look it up on Google Books, but all books seem to say that nobody knows when and where the folk legend came from and how it came to be associated with Wayland Wood and Griston Hall. Some make a rather feeble guess that the story might have something to do with a Thomas Grey, heir of Merton Hall (also near Wayland Wood), who died in 1566 at 11 years old in the care of Temperance Carew. But that was only one dead child, not two; the boy seems to have died some 30 miles away from Wayland Wood at Baconsthorpe Castle; and Temperance Carew would have been a wicked stepmother, not a wicked uncle!
(Hansel and Gretel did, of course, have *some* grains of truth in it, too: it seems to originate from the period of the Great Famine, when there were cases of cannibalism reported...)
Doug wrote:"There's also the possibility (also depending on its' age) that "Babes in the Wood" is based on an *intention* concerning the boys that wasn't carried out because the "rescue" attempt failed. The intended plan (having been somhow overheard?) then became a bed-time story."
True - but how to explain the specific locations?
Although, IF there were any truth to this story, I could also imagine that there might have been a legitimate plan to take the boys somewhere else - this was Dukes of Norfolk territory, after all (with Kenninghall only at a 15 miles' distance). But somehow they ended up in Buckingham's hands.
Pansy
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 19:50:05
Oh dear quite possible. As possible as Richard murdered them in the Tower and buried their bodies under a staircase 10 feet deep.
Mary
Mary
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 20:15:10
ricard1an wrote:"Oh dear quite possible. As possible as Richard murdered them in the Tower and buried their bodies under a staircase 10 feet deep."
Well, now, Mary - no harm in speculating, surely? ;) Those boys had to end up SOMEWHERE, after all. At least we haven't considered alien abduction yet...
Pansy
Well, now, Mary - no harm in speculating, surely? ;) Those boys had to end up SOMEWHERE, after all. At least we haven't considered alien abduction yet...
Pansy
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 20:21:45
Pansy wrote: At least we haven't considered alien abduction yet.
Sandra replies: Ah, as it happens, I was just getting around to
that....
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-13 22:40:43
There's a rather lovely 'Doctor Who' audio that has Richard plagued by endless visitations from time travellers, all desperate to discover the truth of what happened...
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Babes in the Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 8:21:38 PM
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Babes in the Wood
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 8:21:38 PM
Pansy wrote: At least we haven't considered alien abduction yet. Sandra replies: Ah, as it happens, I was just getting around to that....
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-14 13:22:16
Sorry Pansy I didn't make myself clear I was agreeing with you. I was knocking traditionalists who think it is entirely possible that Richard had them murdered and buried them 10 ft under a staircase but will not contemplate any other sensible explanations, which your suggestion was. On reading it again I realize that it could have come over as if I was against your suggestion. I am very sorry. I think we should consider every theory or speculation because that is the only way we might get to the truth and your speculation is a lot more feasible than the traditionalist version.
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-14 15:45:26
Dear Mary, Pansy, et al.,
I'm holding Yahoo's new system to blame for a lot of the misunderstandings among us. It has made the to/fro far more difficult than in past. Email itself has been loaded with the potential for poor communication, and changing the "rules" has only exacerbated this shortcoming.
Just as a general thing, I hope no one has taken offense at any of my posts, and I deeply apologize if this has happened. I admire all members of our community...for their dedication, tenacity, and willingness to share ideas.
We're all in the same leaky boat together, alas!
Warm regards,Judy
Lately, I've been using Facebook more - especially the one-on-one chat feature. Being able to address another person, quickly and directly, has defused many a confusion.... Loyaulte me lie
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:22 AM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Sorry Pansy I didn't make myself clear I was agreeing with you. I was knocking traditionalists who think it is entirely possible that Richard had them murdered and buried them 10 ft under a staircase but will not contemplate any other sensible explanations, which your suggestion was. On reading it again I realize that it could have come over as if I was against your suggestion. I am very sorry. I think we should consider every theory or speculation because that is the only way we might get to the truth and your speculation is a lot more feasible than the traditionalist version.
I'm holding Yahoo's new system to blame for a lot of the misunderstandings among us. It has made the to/fro far more difficult than in past. Email itself has been loaded with the potential for poor communication, and changing the "rules" has only exacerbated this shortcoming.
Just as a general thing, I hope no one has taken offense at any of my posts, and I deeply apologize if this has happened. I admire all members of our community...for their dedication, tenacity, and willingness to share ideas.
We're all in the same leaky boat together, alas!
Warm regards,Judy
Lately, I've been using Facebook more - especially the one-on-one chat feature. Being able to address another person, quickly and directly, has defused many a confusion.... Loyaulte me lie
On Friday, March 14, 2014 8:22 AM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:
Sorry Pansy I didn't make myself clear I was agreeing with you. I was knocking traditionalists who think it is entirely possible that Richard had them murdered and buried them 10 ft under a staircase but will not contemplate any other sensible explanations, which your suggestion was. On reading it again I realize that it could have come over as if I was against your suggestion. I am very sorry. I think we should consider every theory or speculation because that is the only way we might get to the truth and your speculation is a lot more feasible than the traditionalist version.
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-14 16:42:12
Judy wrote :
"I'm holding Yahoo's new system to blame for a lot of the misunderstandings among us. It has made the to/fro far more difficult than in past. Email itself has been loaded with the potential for poor communication, and changing the "rules" has only exacerbated this shortcoming."
Carol responds:
One thing that will help is to make clear to whom and to which specific point we're responding, quoting at least a snippet of that post. Orphan posts that comment on a message without quoting it are just confusing. Even "I agree with you, ----------------" is confusing. Agree with him or her about what?
Regarding posts that are being "trashed," you can always read them on the website. Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to trace a thread or search for a post on a particular topic, but at least they won't be accidentally deleted.
I hate Yahoo, and it's a royal pain (well, not so royal unless we associate "royal" with "Tudor" and I don't) to post under these conditions, but we can all work to communicate more clearly and provide the missing connections between our post and the previous one.
Carol
"I'm holding Yahoo's new system to blame for a lot of the misunderstandings among us. It has made the to/fro far more difficult than in past. Email itself has been loaded with the potential for poor communication, and changing the "rules" has only exacerbated this shortcoming."
Carol responds:
One thing that will help is to make clear to whom and to which specific point we're responding, quoting at least a snippet of that post. Orphan posts that comment on a message without quoting it are just confusing. Even "I agree with you, ----------------" is confusing. Agree with him or her about what?
Regarding posts that are being "trashed," you can always read them on the website. Unfortunately, it's no longer possible to trace a thread or search for a post on a particular topic, but at least they won't be accidentally deleted.
I hate Yahoo, and it's a royal pain (well, not so royal unless we associate "royal" with "Tudor" and I don't) to post under these conditions, but we can all work to communicate more clearly and provide the missing connections between our post and the previous one.
Carol
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-15 10:45:37
ricard1an wrote:"Sorry Pansy I didn't make myself clear I was agreeing with you. I was knocking traditionalists who think it is entirely possible that Richard had them murdered and buried them 10 ft under a staircase but will not contemplate any other sensible explanations, which your suggestion was. On reading it again I realize that it could have come over as if I was against your suggestion. I am very sorry. I think we should consider every theory or speculation because that is the only way we might get to the truth and your speculation is a lot more feasible than the traditionalist version."
Mary, there's absolutely no need to apologise!!! I misunderstood what you said, and I'm sorry about that. But even if you had poked fun at the 'Babes in the Wood' theory, I wouldn't have been offended at all - because it IS more than a bit 'out there' to start speculating on the basis of a folk legend ;)
But I actually found some further information to support my speculations... I think I'll start a new thread for that!
Pansy
Mary, there's absolutely no need to apologise!!! I misunderstood what you said, and I'm sorry about that. But even if you had poked fun at the 'Babes in the Wood' theory, I wouldn't have been offended at all - because it IS more than a bit 'out there' to start speculating on the basis of a folk legend ;)
But I actually found some further information to support my speculations... I think I'll start a new thread for that!
Pansy
Re: Babes in the Wood
2014-03-15 16:46:27
Looking forward to the new thread. We can either accept what we are told by traditionalists or we can do what you are doing and look for new information and evidence.
Mary
Mary
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.