Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: About those dates, etc. - and t

That is more sensical. Whenever I read about that infamous Christmas with the matching dresses, all I can think about is when a girl at my school caused a bit of a scandal at last year's Winterball by showing up in the same dress as the Snow Queen. To make this an even lovelier incident, people are still gossipping that she did it to steal the Snow King from his girlfriend. Coincidences are marvelous things, aren't they?

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:
--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Noticed that the new format has a calendar.Would it be inappropriate
> to use it to mark off important dates from our timeline? BTW, I, too,
> think the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla was marvelous, but
> still love the deliciousness of "coincidences." Drives my husband
> nutty.

Totally agree. I though the wedding was lovely, Camilla looked superb
and they all (including the queen) looked very very happy about it.

I also love synchronicity. The wedding had been due to take place on my
daughter's birthday, which was fun because the registry office part was
in the same place my great-grandparents had one of their two weddings
(they also had church and registry office but in other order), and
their church wedding had been on my son's birthday, with the Windsor
registry office do on son's actual due date.
Then the poor Pope died and set the whole thing off course.

By the way, I've just got a copy of Crowland, with the Latin text, and
I've been struggling over that passage about Queen and and Elizabeth
and the changes of apparel. My Latin's very bad, and I would love
someone else to look at it for me, but so far as I can make out:-
"eisdem colore et forma" - the colour and shape bit - is in the
ablative ('eisdem' being plural, 'colore' & 'forma' singular), so must
refer to an ablative noun further up. The ladies are "Annae reginae
atque Dominae Elizabeth", so no luck there. To cut a long story short,
it seems to me the colour and form must belong
to "mutatoriis" 'changes' (of clothes), so this is not a comparison of
the women's physical characteristics. In fact, I'm sort of coming up
with a tranny of:
". . vain changes of clothes - both of colour and form - distributed to
Anne, the Queen, and even to the Lady Elizabeth, firstborn daughter of
the late king".
This doesn't even suggest they exchanged clothes or wore identical
clothes, only that they both had a lot of clothes changes, with new
styles and colours. If we have any Latin experts, I can post the whole
Latin passage as I'm probably totally wide of the mark. Anyway, this
interpretation makes more sense of Crowland's actual complaint that
these changes were vain (rather than scandalous).

Marie





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

> > Thought the Charles&Camilla wedding was a disgrace, after their
> history together,if you study the Royal Marriages act 1949
> ammendment it is not legal whatever Lord Falconer says ,Royals are
> still barred from Civil Weddings.Camilla it turns out is a
> descendant of Elizabeth Woodville...appropriate really,she is not
> and will not be acceptable on the throne.


We,,, we're all entitled to an opinion, I suppose. However, I'm
mindful that:-

a) Charles, his sons & Camilla are all alive and the internet is a
very public forum;
b) We don't really know what went on, and so are not in a position to
judge. I never took that much notice of the media tittle-tattle, but
came away from the two famous TV interviews with the idea, tooting on
fingers, that the order of events re the marital infedility wasn't
exactly as we had been led to believe;
c) Charles & Camilla have been faithful to each other for an
extremely long time - he's evidently not a heartless womaniser;
d) Diana's sons seem happy with the arrangement;
e) As Oscar Wilde put it in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol':
"God's love
Is kindlier than ye know.
The red rose will but redder grow,
The white rose sweeter blow."
Or something like that (and, no, before anyone makes the suggestion,
I'm not likening Charles to the wife-murderer in the poem - I just
liked the general sentiment and the reference to the roses.)

I'm not sure how I would like to be heir to the throne, being
constitutionally denied the right to my own religious beliefs.
Surely it's time all that was done away with.

Peace all round,

Marie





> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In , nikita2224
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Megan Lerseth
> <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > That is more sensical. Whenever I read about that infamous
> Christmas with the matching dresses, all I can think about is when
a
> girl at my school caused a bit of a scandal at last year's
> Winterball by showing up in the same dress as the Snow Queen. To
> make this an even lovelier incident, people are still gossipping
> that she did it to steal the Snow King from his girlfriend.
> Coincidences are marvelous things, aren't they?
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "Rhonda"
> <metrlt@s...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Noticed that the new format has a calendar.Would it be
> inappropriate
> > > to use it to mark off important dates from our timeline? BTW,
I,
> too,
> > > think the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla was marvelous,
> but
> > > still love the deliciousness of "coincidences." Drives my
> husband
> > > nutty.
> >
> > Totally agree. I though the wedding was lovely, Camilla looked
> superb
> > and they all (including the queen) looked very very happy about
> it.
> >
> > I also love synchronicity. The wedding had been due to take
place
> on my
> > daughter's birthday, which was fun because the registry office
> part was
> > in the same place my great-grandparents had one of their two
> weddings
> > (they also had church and registry office but in other order),
and
> > their church wedding had been on my son's birthday, with the
> Windsor
> > registry office do on son's actual due date.
> > Then the poor Pope died and set the whole thing off course.
> >
> > By the way, I've just got a copy of Crowland, with the Latin
text,
> and
> > I've been struggling over that passage about Queen and and
> Elizabeth
> > and the changes of apparel. My Latin's very bad, and I would
love
> > someone else to look at it for me, but so far as I can make out:-
> > "eisdem colore et forma" - the colour and shape bit - is in the
> > ablative ('eisdem' being plural, 'colore' & 'forma' singular),
so
> must
> > refer to an ablative noun further up. The ladies are "Annae
> reginae
> > atque Dominae Elizabeth", so no luck there. To cut a long story
> short,
> > it seems to me the colour and form must belong
> > to "mutatoriis" 'changes' (of clothes), so this is not a
> comparison of
> > the women's physical characteristics. In fact, I'm sort of
coming
> up
> > with a tranny of:
> > ". . vain changes of clothes - both of colour and form -
> distributed to
> > Anne, the Queen, and even to the Lady Elizabeth, firstborn
> daughter of
> > the late king".
> > This doesn't even suggest they exchanged clothes or wore
identical
> > clothes, only that they both had a lot of clothes changes, with
> new
> > styles and colours. If we have any Latin experts, I can post the
> whole
> > Latin passage as I'm probably totally wide of the mark. Anyway,
> this
> > interpretation makes more sense of Crowland's actual complaint
> that
> > these changes were vain (rather than scandalous).
> >
> > Marie
> > Thought the Charles&Camilla wedding was a disgrace, after their
> history together,if you study the Royal Marriages act 1949
> ammendment it is not legal whatever Lord Falconer says ,Royals are
> still barred from Civil Weddings.Camilla it turns out is a
> descendant of Elizabeth Woodville...appropriate really,she is not
> and will not be acceptable on the throne.
> > Croyland Chronicle is the source for the dresses
story.Xmas1484,Chronicle doesn't say R. presented the dresses, nor
that they were worn, or that R.paid his niece undue attention.Anti
R. historians have it "Elizabeth appeared in robes exactly similar
to those worn by the Queen Consort"Historian Lingard "The eldest
daughter of King Edward danced at her uncles court,arrayed like a
second Queen"Whole thing sounds like a stunt E.Woodville would dream
up.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> > > Thought the Charles&Camilla wedding was a disgrace, after
their
> > history together,if you study the Royal Marriages act 1949
> > ammendment it is not legal whatever Lord Falconer says ,Royals
are
> > still barred from Civil Weddings.Camilla it turns out is a
> > descendant of Elizabeth Woodville...appropriate really,she is
not
> > and will not be acceptable on the throne.
>
>
> We,,, we're all entitled to an opinion, I suppose. However, I'm
> mindful that:-
>
> a) Charles, his sons & Camilla are all alive and the internet is a
> very public forum;
> b) We don't really know what went on, and so are not in a position
to
> judge. I never took that much notice of the media tittle-tattle,
but
> came away from the two famous TV interviews with the idea, tooting
on
> fingers, that the order of events re the marital infedility wasn't
> exactly as we had been led to believe;
> c) Charles & Camilla have been faithful to each other for an
> extremely long time - he's evidently not a heartless womaniser;
> d) Diana's sons seem happy with the arrangement;
> e) As Oscar Wilde put it in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol':
> "God's love
> Is kindlier than ye know.
> The red rose will but redder grow,
> The white rose sweeter blow."
> Or something like that (and, no, before anyone makes the
suggestion,
> I'm not likening Charles to the wife-murderer in the poem - I just
> liked the general sentiment and the reference to the roses.)
>
> I'm not sure how I would like to be heir to the throne, being
> constitutionally denied the right to my own religious beliefs.
> Surely it's time all that was done away with.
>
> Peace all round,
>
> Marie
>Peace to you to Marie-we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
especially where this particular lady is concerned,and the sequence
of events you quote,so our noble Prince is to be allowed to have his
cake and eat it hmmn?Christine.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

--- In , nikita2224
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In , nikita2224
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > That is more sensical. Whenever I read about that infamous
> > Christmas with the matching dresses, all I can think about is
my


I have no Latin so can't help, but I wonder why this particular
passage hasn't been questioned until quite recently, and following
on from that, how many other translations would not withstand
scrutiny.

Mindful of the fact that I could end up in the Tower - I will only
say re Charles and Camilla that I wonder why they bothered to marry
when they so obviously did not honour the vows they made first time
around. I am not against the monarchy, but I think Charles has done
it incredible damage, I enjoy watching royal weddings and the like,
but I didn't watch this one. Neither am I one of those who thinks
Princess Di should be sanctified.



> and
> > > their church wedding had been on my son's birthday, with the
> > Windsor
> > > registry office do on son's actual due date.
> > > Then the poor Pope died and set the whole thing off course.
> > >
> > > By the way, I've just got a copy of Crowland, with the Latin
> text,
> > and
> > > I've been struggling over that passage about Queen and and
> > Elizabeth
> > > and the changes of apparel. My Latin's very bad, and I would
> love
> > > someone else to look at it for me, but so far as I can make
out:-
> > > "eisdem colore et forma" - the colour and shape bit - is in
the
> > > ablative ('eisdem' being plural, 'colore' & 'forma' singular),
> so
> > must
> > > refer to an ablative noun further up. The ladies are "Annae
> > reginae
> > > atque Dominae Elizabeth", so no luck there. To cut a long
story
> > short,
> > > it seems to me the colour and form must belong
> > > to "mutatoriis" 'changes' (of clothes), so this is not a
> > comparison of
> > > the women's physical characteristics. In fact, I'm sort of
> coming
> > up
> > > with a tranny of:
> > > ". . vain changes of clothes - both of colour and form -
> > distributed to
> > > Anne, the Queen, and even to the Lady Elizabeth, firstborn
> > daughter of
> > > the late king".
> > > This doesn't even suggest they exchanged clothes or wore
> identical
> > > clothes, only that they both had a lot of clothes changes,
with
> > new
> > > styles and colours. If we have any Latin experts, I can post
the
> > whole
> > > Latin passage as I'm probably totally wide of the mark.
Anyway,
> > this
> > > interpretation makes more sense of Crowland's actual complaint
> > that
> > > these changes were vain (rather than scandalous).
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > Thought the Charles&Camilla wedding was a disgrace, after
their
> > history together,if you study the Royal Marriages act 1949
> > ammendment it is not legal whatever Lord Falconer says ,Royals
are
> > still barred from Civil Weddings.Camilla it turns out is a
> > descendant of Elizabeth Woodville...appropriate really,she is
not
> > and will not be acceptable on the throne.
> > > Croyland Chronicle is the source for the dresses
> story.Xmas1484,Chronicle doesn't say R. presented the dresses, nor
> that they were worn, or that R.paid his niece undue attention.Anti
> R. historians have it "Elizabeth appeared in robes exactly similar
> to those worn by the Queen Consort"Historian Lingard "The eldest
> daughter of King Edward danced at her uncles court,arrayed like a
> second Queen"Whole thing sounds like a stunt E.Woodville would
dream
> up.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: About those dates, etc. - and those dresses


--- In , nikita2224
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "dixonian2004"
> <dixonian2004@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , nikita2224
> > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , nikita2224
> > > <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > > That is more sensical. Whenever I read about that infamous
> > > > Christmas with the matching dresses, all I can think about
is
> > my
> > Re: the Chas:Camilla wedding can only reiterate that going by the
> wording of the Royal Marriages Act 1949-it is not worth the paper
it
> is written on,open to all sorts of challenges when/if time comes
for
> Charles to accede.

Sorry, what implication does this have for Charles' accession? As for
Camilla's, she is not planning to be Queen anyway.
Re another post, reminding us that Camilla's first marriage took
place in a Catholic church Catholic and so her divorce doesn't count,
it does of course does count in law.

As regards being head of the Church of England, it is well known
Charles never did like the idea of being Defender of the Faith, and
would prefer a more inclusive Defender of Faith.

I do find it odd that whilst half the western world is on its second
marriage, and not ostracised, the marriage of a middle-aged divorcee
and widower can arouse such feelings of intolerance in people who
have never met them and are not privy to the full record of past
events (we have surely been manipulated by the media, and it will be
a long time before it is all history and we have a chance to get
behind the media hype and study this dispassionately). Is there still
at root a misconceived belief that the couple were actively having an
affair from the start of Charles' marriage to Diana?

Perhaps if the protocol pedants hadn't been out in force when Charles
was single (as I well remember them to have been) he wouldn't have
been forced to choose an upper-class Protestant virgin in the first
place. They were very thin on the ground, by all accounts. Everyone
deserves a second chance and I think it is far better than he and
Camilla are now properly married (arcane restrictions in the last
Marriage Act don't bother me much, I'm afraid - I've not read the Act
personally so I wouldn't like to pass comment on its implications).

Sorry, this is off topic.

Marie

In the most obvious sense it is off-topic but it illustrates some powerful points. First, to be a "royal correspondent" today seems to demand nothing more than a powerful imagination. Historians in five hundred years' time will be using glorified gossip columns as sources but then some people take Mancini, Vergil, Morton etc at face value today. Plus ca change ......
In other words, I completely agree.
Stephen







------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On May 2, 2005, at 09:15, Stephen Lark wrote:

> In the most obvious sense it is off-topic but it illustrates some
> powerful points. First, to be a "royal correspondent" today seems to
> demand nothing more than a powerful imagination. Historians in five
> hundred years' time will be using glorified gossip columns as sources
> but then some people take Mancini, Vergil, Morton etc at face value
> today. Plus ca change ......
> In other words, I completely agree.
>

Good point Stephen, and one I totally agree with.
Paul

I agree with Nikita on the subject of Charles and Camilla and think we have to accept that people have a lot of different opinions regarding the Royals and so have to agree to disagree.
----- Original Message -----
From: nikita2224
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: About those dates, etc. - and those dresses


--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , nikita2224
> <
Marie I do not hate anyone that IS a truly shocking thing to
say.Neither was I "Peddling" my politics as you put it,or under the
impression you were stating yours-sheesh-I'm gobsmacked at your
response.











no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > No Marie I'm English- actually born in upper Teesdale not far
from
> > Middleham.This thread only came about in reply to your praise
of
> > Charles &Camillas' wedding,you may not rate Andrew Morton but no
> one
> > has sued him for slander yet have they?There are other sources
too
> > beside him, and Richard P.B.New Labour encouraged Charles to go
> > ahead with the wedding knowing the damage it would cause the
> > Monarchy and to uncouple it-from the C OF E aswell, as you
suggest,
> > will marginalise it even further.However as you rightly point
out
> > this forum is about the 15th C: by all means let's get back on
> > track.Thank you for your input nonetheless,I think we're all too
> > aware there is an election today.
>
> Nikita, can I make this brief. I replied only because I was so
> shocked at the vitriol of your post. Can I be blunt and say I
still
> find your approach schocking? I do not feel it is proper either to
> peddle one's politics or to indulge in hate campaigns against
living
> persons on this forum. To the extent that my replies have given
any
> (albeit lopsided) indication of my own political views, I regret
them.
>
> And, no, I'm not French.
>
> Marie
>
> >




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Coral Nelson"
<coral.nelson@b...> wrote:
> I agree with Nikita on the subject of Charles and Camilla and think
we have to accept that people have a lot of different opinions
regarding the Royals and so have to agree to disagree.

In another group I belong to, someone calls "pizza" when some of the
posts are getting a little heated. It's short for "Let's agree to
disagree, and let's all go out for pizza."

Let's go out for pizza, and let's have it in the 15th century.

Katy

Absolutely. In fact the current Prince of Wales, if he came to the throne under his present arrangement, would have something in common with Henry II, Henry IV, Edward IV and Mary I. What is the connection?
----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: About those dates, etc. - and those dresses


--- In , "Coral Nelson"
<coral.nelson@b...> wrote:
> I agree with Nikita on the subject of Charles and Camilla and think
we have to accept that people have a lot of different opinions
regarding the Royals and so have to agree to disagree.

In another group I belong to, someone calls "pizza" when some of the
posts are getting a little heated. It's short for "Let's agree to
disagree, and let's all go out for pizza."

Let's go out for pizza, and let's have it in the 15th century.

Katy




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
> Absolutely. In fact the current Prince of Wales, if he came to the
throne under his present arrangement, would have something in common
with Henry II, Henry IV, Edward IV and Mary I. What is the connection?

They all married people who had prior spouses?

Henry II - Eleanor of Aquitane

Henry IV - Joanna of Navarre

Edward IV - Elizabeth Woodville

Mary I - Phillip of Spain

--- In , "lilith82200"
<lilith@e...> wrote:
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > Absolutely. In fact the current Prince of Wales, if he came to the
> throne under his present arrangement, would have something in common
> with Henry II, Henry IV, Edward IV and Mary I. What is the connection?
>
> They all married people who had prior spouses?
>
> Henry II - Eleanor of Aquitane
>
> Henry IV - Joanna of Navarre
>
> Edward IV - Elizabeth Woodville
>
> Mary I - Phillip of Spain

You are getting the idea but that is not the complete answer!

Stephen

Is it that there were step children?

In a message dated 5/6/2005 3:52:44 PM Mountain Standard Time,
dixonian2004@... writes:

Is it that there were step children?







Oh, sorry, I hadn't seen this answer before mentioning it myself.

LML,
Pam