Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Home Archive Images Groups

I'm back!

2014-05-25 19:47:17

Johanne Tournier

Hi, All!

And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 10:27:20

Hilary Jones

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 10:41:00

SandraMachin

I noticed that in a recent interview, Vanessa Roe of the Alliance referred to Richard as Richard of York. As he was never known as this, I can only imagine it was an attempt to emphasise York's claim to him. While I do not take sides in any of this, I do think that it is another example of how inaccuracies enter into things. Richard's father was Richard of York, and Edward IV's second son could have been called that too. But our Richard, while he was of the House of York, was Richard of Gloucester. I went to great lengths recently to see that this very inaccuracy was corrected on the blurb of my book. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me as well! <g> Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:27 AM To: Subject: Re: I'm back!

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 12:36:58

Pamela Bain

Or "Historians" cannot be bothered to check on little things like dates!
On May 26, 2014, at 4:27 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 15:20:34

Johanne Tournier

Hi, Hilary!

Ah, it's good to be back! I of course have been chuckling at the discussion on another thread of poor, paranoid HT!

Regarding the launching of an appeal regardless of any feeling as to where Richard should be laid to rest, I do think it is time for the reburial to proceed. It appears from what I have read that the reburial will not take place until next Spring. I fear that all this time, when not being tested, Richard's bones have been lying in a meager cardboard box. L Perhaps I am wrong I hope so!

On a more hopeful note I do see the Cathedral Fabrics Commission recommended a redesign of Richard's tomb to be more consistent with the ambience of Leicester Cathedral. I hope that means that the tomb will more closely resemble the lovely design which was sponsored by the Lost-in-Castles people, which I thought was almost ideal. (In contrast to the design desired by the Cathedral itself, described by one lady as a piece of Stilton perched hopefully on a doily. J We can always hope!

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 15:20:40

Johanne Tournier

Didn’t they spell “Fotheringay” [sic] wrong? Isn’t it supposed to be “Fotheringhay”? Something to do with a place where hay is harvested, I think.

However, one thing I liked is that they endeavoured to be at least neutral regarding Richard’s life and career, if not actually positive. That is a hopeful sign.

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 8:37 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Or "Historians" cannot be bothered to check on little things like dates!

On May 26, 2014, at 4:27 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 15:20:47

Johanne Tournier

I read somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when I skimmed it briefly just now, I couldn't find it), that by virtue of an application by the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs on the proceedings to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to pay legal costs incurred by the other parties who were successful. I believe, however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the Alliance will be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won't have to pay the Defendants legal costs.

If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 15:43:35

SandraMachin

I understand the PA are not going to incur any costs, but in order to lodge an appeal, they would have to have proper grounds and probably new submissions, not simply that they do not like the verdict. I do not think they do have anything new to submit. The decision was that the original licence was issued correctly and nothing further should have been done. The responsibility was and still is that of Leicester's uni team, which chose Leicester Cathedral for his re-burial. As the reasons for this decision are listed quite categorically, and do not seem arguable, I do not think an appeal would be accepted. I'm not a legal eagle, but this is how I read it all. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM To: Subject: RE: I'm back!

If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] I'm back!

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 18:42:02

Johanne Tournier

Hi, Sandra!

Well, I am a retired barrister and solicitor, but practiced in Nova Scotia, not the UK. In general, you're right, you can't just appeal because you don't like the decision. You have to have grounds of appeal, usually based on some error of law of the trier of fact. But the system is set up to discourage appeals willy-nilly. Also, what you wrote about them having to make new submissions is true; the PA couldn't just repeat the same grounds it used in the first instance, at the High Court level. Usually, the grounds would be something like, The learned judges of the High Court erred in law in their application of the decision in the Tameside case to the case at bar, and things like that. And that the decision of the High Court was so flawed that it should be overturned and the decision of the Appeal Court (if that is the proper venue for an appeal) substituted for it, or if they don't have that power, to send it back to the High Court for reconsideration. The odds are always against an appeal succeeding, and having gone this far once, they may just want to walk away at this point. That is often the case, and expense, the possibility that at the next level they might be liable for payment of costs, and the odds against success are often the deciding factors.

From my point of view, although I certainly understood from the git-go that the intention was that Richard's bones would be reinterred in the Leicester Cathedral, I don't exactly understand why the University should have been able to make a binding decision, and if you notice, the different documents along the way speak of efforts to bring in other parties for some consultation, and the University (i.e. Richard Buckley) apparently vetoed all of them. And I *do* think that the case is unique, given that it was King Richard III and not Joe Blow from Kokomo who was being exhumed and reburied.

Another thing it came up afterward that the License wasn't clear, because it mentioned the bodies (six were dealt with by the License, I believe) might be reburied in three different locations. The response was that it should be read along with the application for the license, which spoke of reburial of Richard's remains in the Cathedral. But I am not sure that there is anything in the License specifically incorporating the terms of the application.

Oh, one other perhaps minor point . . . the Court states that the car park was unconsecrated ground. But surely it was consecrated when Richard was laid to rest there. Were the monasteries, etc. unconsecrated when they were dissolved under Henry VIII? At the least, doesn't that raise again the possibility that a *funeral* rather than just a *reburial* might be more appropriate in Richard's case? (The argument is that the Friars would have conducted some sort of funeral service, but I don't think we actually know that, and it certainly looks like Richard's body was at the least dumped unceremoniously in the grave.)

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM

To:

Subject: RE: I'm back!

If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 18:56:40

Pamela Bain

Great points Johanne! I had no idea you were a barrister/solicitor! I am just amazed by the many learned folks in this group. I am always impressed with the scholarship, points of view, and thinking!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:54 AM
To:
Subject: RE: I'm back!

Hi, Sandra!

Well, I am a retired barrister and solicitor, but practiced in Nova Scotia , not the UK . In general, you’re right, you can’t just appeal because you don’t like the decision. You have to have grounds of appeal, usually based on some “error of law” of the “trier of fact.” But the system is set up to discourage appeals willy-nilly. Also, what you wrote about them having to make new submissions is true; the PA couldn’t just repeat the same grounds it used in the first instance, at the High Court level. Usually, the grounds would be something like, “The learned judges of the High Court erred in law in their application of the decision in the Tameside case to the case at bar,” and things like that. And that the decision of the High Court was so flawed that it should be overturned and the decision of the Appeal Court (if that is the proper venue for an appeal) substituted for it, or if they don’t have that power, to send it back to the High Court for reconsideration. The odds are always against an appeal succeeding, and having gone this far once, they may just want to walk away at this point. That is often the case, and expense, the possibility that at the next level they might be liable for payment of costs, and the odds against success are often the deciding factors.

From my point of view, although I certainly understood from the git-go that the intention was that Richard’s bones would be reinterred in the Leicester Cathedral, I don’t exactly understand why the University should have been able to make a binding decision, and if you notice, the different documents along the way speak of efforts to bring in other parties for some consultation, and the University (i.e. Richard Buckley) apparently vetoed all of them. And I *do* think that the case is unique, given that it was King Richard III and not Joe Blow from Kokomo who was being exhumed and reburied.

Another thing – it came up afterward that the License wasn’t clear, because it mentioned the bodies (six were dealt with by the License, I believe) might be reburied in three different locations. The response was that it should be read along with the application for the license, which spoke of reburial of Richard’s remains in the Cathedral. But I am not sure that there is anything in the License specifically incorporating the terms of the application.

Oh, one other perhaps minor point . . . the Court states that the car park was unconsecrated ground. But surely it was consecrated when Richard was laid to rest there. Were the monasteries, etc. unconsecrated when they were dissolved under Henry VIII? At the least, doesn’t that raise again the possibility that a *funeral* rather than just a *reburial* might be more appropriate in Richard’s case? (The argument is that the Friars would have conducted some sort of funeral service, but I don’t think we actually know that, and it certainly looks like Richard’s body was at the least dumped unceremoniously in the grave.)

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

I understand the PA are not going to incur any costs, but in order to lodge an appeal, they would have to have proper grounds and probably new submissions, not simply that they do not like the verdict. I do not think they do have anything new to submit. The decision was that the original licence was issued correctly and nothing further should have been done. The responsibility was and still is that of Leicester ’s uni team, which chose Leicester Cathedral for his re-burial. As the reasons for this decision are listed quite categorically, and do not seem arguable, I do not think an appeal would be accepted. I’m not a legal eagle, but this is how I read it all.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM

To:

Subject: RE: I'm back!

I read somewhere (I think it is in the judgement of the High Court, but when I skimmed it briefly just now, I couldn’t find it), that by virtue of an application by the Plantagenet Alliance, the public (via which body, I am not exactly sure) is responsible for up to 70,000 pounds (I think was the figure) of the legal costs on the proceedings to be incurred by the Plantagenet Alliance. Now in most cases, an award of legal costs usually follows the result, meaning in this case that the Plantagenet Alliance in the usual course of things would have had to pay legal costs incurred by the other parties who were successful. I believe, however, that the interlocutory decision on costs means that the Alliance will be entitled to receive up to the 70,000 pounds from the Defendant(s) and won’t have to pay the Defendants legal costs.

If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 19:14:52

SandraMachin

Hi Johanne. Thank you for such a lengthy and exceedingly clear explanation. I'm sure it would all be the same here. Well, the as near the same as makes no difference. The whole thing with poor Richard is a mess, because no one on the Leicester side, or in the Ministry of Justice, thought he really would be found. Only Philippa, JA-H & Co felt convinced. But, I suppose, that doesn't make the licence invalid. If the terms were met, then it stands. I can't think what is meant about the car park not being consecrated ground. No, it isn't consecrated now, but yes, it certainly was in 1485. That is surely the point. Whether or not there was a proper service, of whatever kind, he was laid to rest in a respectful place (if not with complete respect) in Greyfriars. There had at the very least to be appropriate prayers said over him. They couldn't possibly not, surely? Would it not be sinful to put a body close to the high altar and fail to say anything? I don't know about the six bodies and three different places. I did read through the whole thing, and remember getting to that, but not the specific wording. I just seem to recall that if Richard was found, they said from the outset that he would be buried in Leicester Cathedral. If only the powers at Leicester hadn't come over the way they did at the beginning, perhaps none of this would have happened. The bad publicity started up with shoving him under a slab', keeping him in a box', taking bits of him' and even that there was to be a way of getting into his tomb after he'd been laid to rest, and still taking bits. It really has been awful. The press, of course, has had a field day. And now it's come to this, with virtual civil war among Richard's supporters. Richard is Richard, wherever he's interred, and to me that is all that should really matter. He is all that should matter. I'll certainly be going to Leicester to pay my respects. I'd go to York, Westminster, Fotheringhay, wherever. He's worth far more than any of this infighting. What are we all thinking of? We have him again, and should be thankful for it, not turning our backs because we don't like the court decision. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:54 PM To: Subject: RE: I'm back!

Hi, Sandra!

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 11:44 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] I'm back!

Sandra

=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM

To:

Subject: RE: I'm back!

If that is the case, I think it is more likely that the Alliance might consider launching an appeal than would be the case if they were looking at paying now and perhaps paying later as well.

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 6:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 21:21:18

ellrosa1452

Hi JoanneWelcome back, we've missed you. Elaine

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-26 23:46:26

Johanne Tournier

Hi, Elaine!

Thanks for the welcome back! I've missed you and everyone here, too! It's good to be back, and I hope that now I will have a chance once again to do some serious Ricardian reading. I also have to renew my membership in the Society!

TTFN J

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 5:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Hi Joanne

Welcome back, we've missed you.

Elaine

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 02:21:10

gbutterf1

It just seems like last week that we talked;-)G

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 10:53:02

Paul Trevor Bale

Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul

On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All! And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 10:54:48

Paul Trevor Bale

And that ghastly romance writer has coined the phrase for the WOTR of The Cousins Wars, which she claims is what it was called, in spite of there being no mention of it anywhere before her novels!
Paul

On 26/05/2014 10:40, 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] wrote:
I noticed that in a recent interview, Vanessa Roe of the Alliance referred to Richard as Richard of York. As he was never known as this, I can only imagine it was an attempt to emphasise York’s claim to him. While I do not take sides in any of this, I do think that it is another example of how inaccuracies enter into things. Richard’s father was Richard of York, and Edward IV’s second son could have been called that too. But our Richard, while he was of the House of York, was Richard of Gloucester. I went to great lengths recently to see that this very inaccuracy was corrected on the blurb of my book. If I’m wrong, please feel free to correct me as well! <g> Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:27 AM To: Subject: Re: I'm back!

Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:

Hi, All! And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 12:23:50

kcflet

Only other place I have seen it called the Cousins War is in the ladybird children's book series from the 60's on Warwick The Kingmaker.

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 12:36:16

kcflet

Not knowing anything about how hereditary titles work i was just wondering - when Edward on becoming King (Ed IV) absorbed the title of Duke of York into the crown - would that not then make Richard when he became King also Duke of York.Or if his nephew, Edward's son Richard, was made Duke of York - and then declared illegitimate so had no right to the title would it then revert back to our Richard.I know he never went by this title but was just curious as to whether he was entitled to if he had wanted to????

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 12:48:47

SandraMachin

I don't know all that much either, kcflet, and I suppose if Richard had wanted to, yes, but I can't see that once king he would ever choose to be known by a lesser title. The whole point of being king was that one became top dog and had that nice gold shiny thing on one's head. <g> Sandra =^..^= From: kcflet Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:36 PM To: Subject: Re: I'm back!

Not knowing anything about how hereditary titles work i was just wondering - when Edward on becoming King (Ed IV) absorbed the title of Duke of York into the crown - would that not then make Richard when he became King also Duke of York. Or if his nephew, Edward's son Richard, was made Duke of York - and then declared illegitimate so had no right to the title would it then revert back to our Richard. I know he never went by this title but was just curious as to whether he was entitled to if he had wanted to????

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 12:53:32

Johanne Tournier

LOL, George!

Welcome back to you, too! J

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 10:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

It just seems like last week that we talked;-)

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 16:11:14

hjnatdat

George welcome back! Does indeed seem like only yesterday. :) H

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 16:16:49

Hilary Jones

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes. BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul

On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:

Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 16:23:14

Pamela Bain

My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&..

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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 16:27:51

Hilary Jones

You know, despite all, I made myself watch the last episode (that's nearly a year since I recorded it) and I have to say Aneurin Barnard came over as very sympathetic, despite all the obvious inaccuracies. It was as though, by the end, the real Richard had taken him over, perhaps he does that with all of us? It was the rest of the characters who were cardboard. Which is perhaps how it should be? H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent The White Queen for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory &&&.. 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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back! I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes. BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote: Please Johanne, don't go there!
These PA people, who are supposed to care about Richard, have delayed his burial by over a year. This appeal should never have been brought in the first place, and anyone who really cares about seeing King Richard reinterred with the dignity and seriousness he deserves should simply disappear and allow it to happen. At last!
Paul

On 26/05/2014 10:27, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Welcome back Johanne! There was a mention in one article I read that an appeal could be lodged. But whether the Alliance have the will, or more importantly, the money I doubt. The legal profession must have made a bomb already. BTW as a sucker for punishment I read the documentation and even in the summary on Richard someone got at least two things wrong - they said he left Middleham in 1465 and that Clarence died in 1482. Poor Richard seems forever doomed to inaccuracies. H On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote: Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it! Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision? Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanne L. Tournier Email - jltournier60@... or jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible." - Jesus of Nazareth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 16:32:07

Pamela Bain

You are a trooper&&.I simply could not make it through. I do hope, that someday, someone brings to the small or large screen, something which captures the true Richard. With the many gifted actors in Britain, and all the many writers, it is a shame that he has been handled so badly, and for so very long!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 17:54:51

Janjovian

I have to say I agree with you. .Aneurin Barnard was probably the best thing about The White Queen.
He did a quite splendid job.

Jess From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 27/05/2014 16:27
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Posted by: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> Reply via web post " Reply to sender " Reply to group " Start a New Topic " Messages in this topic (24) Visit Your Group New Members 1 " Privacy " Unsub
[The entire original message is not included.]

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-27 18:21:11

[email protected]

Jess and Hilary,
I totally agree with you about Aneurin Barnard. It is only a pity that that the series was otherwise,
let's say, rather disappointing. But for him it is worth to give it a try.
Eva

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-28 12:38:40

Paul Trevor Bale

As everyone here knows, I have been trying for years! Was getting close until White Queen, on the back of high sales of paperbacks, reared it's ugly head on the BBC.
"Wars of the Roses? No. Just done that haven't they? How about another Tudor film?"
My script is out there, and getting a lot of very good feedback, but money people are nervous of the cost, especailly as they say, it has just been done. No amount of my screaming "But it hasn't been Done! Only a female novelists innaccurate version of the womens side!" seems to be having any effect.
I dreamed of winning the Lottery the other week. Only 150 million. When asked what I would do I said " My first millions will go to signing up the two actors I want to play Richard and Anne. Then I will hire a producer and using the 100 million start working out a schedule to film!"
Hey ho....
Paul

On 27/05/2014 16:32, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] wrote:

You are a trooper…….I simply could not make it through. I do hope, that someday, someone brings to the small or large screen, something which captures the true Richard. With the many gifted actors in Britain, and all the many writers, it is a shame that he has been handled so badly, and for so very long!

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

My sweet husband, thinking he was doing a good thing, sent “The White Queen” for us to watch. I tried, but it was excruciating, and I was trying to explain who was who. Then he asked about Philippa Gregory ………..

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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] I'm back!

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:

Hi, All!

And I’m enjoying the discussion - what I’ve seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-28 12:45:45

Pamela Bain

Maybe each of us should buy a lottery ticket, and send the proceeds to your dream!
On May 28, 2014, at 6:38 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-28 12:59:34

ricard1an

After reading the chapters you put on your website PG couldn't come anywhere near. The conversation between Richard and Cecily was particularly good.
Mary

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-28 13:04:51

Janjovian

Paul, have you thought of getting in touch with Ang Lee and James Schamus at Focus Features?
They like to make quality films and Ang always likes to try something new.

Jess From: Pamela Bain pbain@... []
Sent: 28/05/2014 12:46
To: <>
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Maybe each of us should buy a lottery ticket, and send the proceeds to your dream!
On May 28, 2014, at 6:38 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 16:23, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:

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:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

I echo that Paul, lets get it done. After all they bury your bones not your spirit; that can go wherever it wishes.

BTW I see that PG's next victim is Margaret Pole - I dread to think. H

On Tuesday, 27 May 2014, 10:53, "Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@... []" <> wrote:

On Sunday, 25 May 2014, 19:47, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" mailto: wrote:

Hi, All!

And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case - is there any possibility that the Plantagenet Alliance might appeal the decision?

Loyaulte,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

[The entire original message is not included.]

Re: The (tongue-in-cheek) truth about Henry VII's birth and lineage

2014-05-28 16:53:35

[email protected]

Love it Sandra, needed a good laugh right now after result of JR.

Christine

Re: The (tongue-in-cheek) truth about Henry VII's birth and lineage

2014-05-28 16:58:42

SandraMachin

Thank you, Christine. We aim to please, as the saying goes. And it always pleases to do some Henry-bashing, yes? (Sorry David) Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:53 PM To: Subject: Re: The (tongue-in-cheek) truth about Henry VII's birth and lineage

Love it Sandra, needed a good laugh right now after result of JR.

Christine

Re: The (tongue-in-cheek) truth about Henry VII's birth and lineage

2014-05-28 17:10:35

[email protected]

Yes bash away Sandra.

Christine

Re: I'm back!

2014-05-28 21:04:59

Paul Trevor Bale

Thank you Mary.
The Fall of brother George is going up tomorrow!
Paul

On 28/05/2014 12:59, maryfriend@... [] wrote:
After reading the chapters you put on your website PG couldn't come anywhere near. The conversation between Richard and Cecily was particularly good.
Mary

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Re: I'm back!

2014-06-01 00:59:44

justcarol67

Johanne wrote :

"Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!"

Carol responds:

Hi, Johanne. I was out of town (in Houston for a family reunion) when you returned to the forum and am just now getting caught up. A warm if belated welcome back!

Carol

Re: I'm back!

2014-06-01 11:02:52

Johanne Tournier

Hi, Carol!

Thanks for the welcome back!

I was missing your posts. But I'm glad to see you're still here! And I will repeat that I've been enjoying the discussion, and Sandra's late medieval humour, among other things. J

TTFN,

Johanne

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

From: [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 9:00 PM
To:
Subject: Re: I'm back!

Johanne wrote :

"Hi, All! And I'm enjoying the discussion - what I've seen of it!"

Carol responds:

Hi, Johanne. I was out of town (in Houston for a family reunion) when you returned to the forum and am just now getting caught up. A warm if belated welcome back!

Carol

Re: I'm back!

2014-06-01 22:06:19

justcarol67

Johane wrote :

"Hi, Carol! Thanks for the welcome back! I was missing your posts. But I'm glad to see you're still here! And I will repeat that I've been enjoying the discussion, and Sandra's late medieval humour, among other things. J"

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Afraid I haven't had much to contribute lately, but I should have more time later in the year when I retire from copyediting. By the way, I'll be in England between August 4 and 14, in time to see the refurbished Richard III statue in its new setting, but not in time to see his new tomb.

Carol

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.