Re: Richard's height and Edward's hair

Hello,
In my cyber snooping I discovered two interesting facts on the subjects.
First,human height is not wholly determined by the genetic
charcteristics of family. It is a multifacetted process genetically
and environmentally. There is one genetic button that turns on the
growth hormone,for instance, and this process could also be influenced
by diet of the mother before birth, diet of the child,illness, etc.

Second, hair that is left on a body post mortem becomes lighter due to
oxidation.

As for rumors of Cicely Neville being a trollope, well I seem to
recall that a lot of this came from Warwick, her nephew, when he was
at Louis XI's court trying to discredit Edward. Warwick had also been
involved in slandering Margaret of Anjou, accusing her of adultery
,and claiming that her son was not H6's.

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:

> As for rumors of Cicely Neville being a trollope, well I seem to
> recall that a lot of this came from Warwick, her nephew, when he was
> at Louis XI's court trying to discredit Edward. Warwick had also been
> involved in slandering Margaret of Anjou, accusing her of adultery
> ,and claiming that her son was not H6's.

Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had produced,
exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.

Katy

But Warwick was such a nice guy.

Rhonda wrote:

> Hello,
> In my cyber snooping I discovered two interesting facts on the subjects.
> First,human height is not wholly determined by the genetic
> charcteristics of family. It is a multifacetted process genetically
> and environmentally. There is one genetic button that turns on the
> growth hormone,for instance, and this process could also be influenced
> by diet of the mother before birth, diet of the child,illness, etc.
>
> Second, hair that is left on a body post mortem becomes lighter due to
> oxidation.
>
> As for rumors of Cicely Neville being a trollope, well I seem to
> recall that a lot of this came from Warwick, her nephew, when he was
> at Louis XI's court trying to discredit Edward. Warwick had also been
> involved in slandering Margaret of Anjou, accusing her of adultery
> ,and claiming that her son was not H6's.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
> In my cyber snooping I discovered two interesting facts on the
subjects.
> First,human height is not wholly determined by the genetic
> charcteristics of family. It is a multifacetted process genetically
> and environmentally. There is one genetic button that turns on the
> growth hormone,for instance, and this process could also be
influenced
> by diet of the mother before birth, diet of the child,illness, etc.
>
> Second, hair that is left on a body post mortem becomes lighter due
to
> oxidation.
>
> As for rumors of Cicely Neville being a trollope, well I seem to
> recall that a lot of this came from Warwick, her nephew, when he was
> at Louis XI's court trying to discredit Edward. Warwick had also
been
> involved in slandering Margaret of Anjou, accusing her of adultery
> ,and claiming that her son was not H6's.

I don't believe one fall from grace in an marriage to which she she
had never been in a position to give proper consent makes a woman a
trollope. She was a small child when she was settled on Richard Duke
of York. I think there has been some tendency for historians
resistant to the idea of Edward's illegitimacy to use this argument
as a sort of emotional blackmail. I would say the real problem is in
letting go of the romantic notion that the couple had been
inseparable since childhood. The inseparability seems to have started
quite late, and the Cecily of the earlier years of the marriage could
well have been neglected and disgruntled. We just don't know.

The reports on the continent in 1469 did indeed come from Warwick.
However, it is not really possible to attribute the "slanders" of
both queens merely to Warwick's poisoned tongue. As far as I'm aware,
there is only one report linking Warwick to the story of Queen
Margaret's adultery, and that is his allegation to the Bishop of
Terni in 1460 that "the royal power is in the hands of his [Henry's]
wife and those who defile the royal chamber." Various chronicles are
agreed that suspicions about Edward's parentage back in 1453 were
general throughout the population.
As far as the Edward IV slander is concerned, if you look at the
entire thing in context it begins to look like a much bigger problem.
Firstly, it surfaces in the context of rebellion by Warwick and
Clarence. This may simply have been masterminded by Warwick, looking
for a cynical excuse to make his daughter queen, but if so Clarence
was sufficiently convinced as to have nursed the belief in his
brother's illegitimacy and his own right to the throne right up to
the end, long after Warwick's death. He appears to have feared
Edward, and become quite paranoid about what Edward might do to put
his family out of the picture. Also, if Warwick totally invented the
story, it is a bit of a coincidence that then we find (or MKJ finds)
that York really was absent on campaign when Edward was most likely
to have been conceived.
As soon as Edward dies we get a written report that the initiator of
the story was in fact Cecily. And if we look back to 1469 we do see
an apparent rift between Cecily the King, hastily and incompletely
patched up. Michael Jones says she was deprived of Fotheringhay in
return for a ruinous Berkhamsted. Joanna Laynesmith says Berkhamsted
wasn't ruinous and was well placed, and it was probably voluntary.
Let's look at the facts. Berkhamsted probably wasn't ruinous, fair
enough, although to be fair to MKJ you'd think it was looking at the
old guide book which I have. It was used occasionally, and it now
looks as though most of the damage took place in the 16th century,
when the fabric was rifled for the building of a nearby mansion.
However, Cecily had made a lot of improvements to Fotheringhay during
the 1460s and it was almost certainly in better shape than
Berkahmsted, so her change of heart would need explaining. At the
time she wrote her MA dissertation on Cecily, at any rate, Laynesmith
appears to have believed Berkahmsted to have been better placed than
it was, describing Akeman Street, the road on which it lies, as being
the Roman road to London. In fact, Akeman Street runs east-west, and
connects Bath (Aquae Sulis) with St Albans (Verulamium). There is
also an apparent delay between Cecily losing Fotheringhay and being
given Berkhamsted. The patent for the grant of Berkhamsted is dated
4th March, but it refers to the date of her "surrender" of
Fotheringhay as 8th February. It also, rather tellingly, includes the
King's promise that "if she be in any way removed from the same she
shall be fully compensated". And Edward's constable of the castle was
to remain in office.
That March, Edward's third daughter was finally named for his mother.
Traditionally, the first daughter should have been so named. If he
wanted to honour his queen first, okay, but why was the second
daughter given the compromise name of Mary? Laynesmith says that the
Duchess Cecily was probably one of baby Cecily's two godmothers
(girls got two godmothers & one godfather), and states that the other
two godparents were Jacquetta and Warwick. An interesting trio. Also
interesting that we have the names of the other two for certain.

Cecily then visits Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich before they
sailed for Calais for the marriage with Isabel. To talk them out of
the marriage? Well, if she knew what was going on, why didn't she
warn Edward? He had no idea. If she didn't know what was going on,
why hadn't she accompanied Edward on his progress? It fits the facts
rather better to suppose that she knew of the wedding plans at the
very least, and approved of them.
There's more. I could go on. But something was going on with Cecily
in 1469 - and very possibly in 1470.
The truth of Edward IV's illegitimacy isn't provable, but it isn't so
easily dismissed.

Marie

Hasn't it been surmised that a lot of Richard's deformity in More's work was a private joke because More bore more than a passing resemblance to Richard himself?

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote:--- In , "Rhonda" <metrlt@s...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
> In my cyber snooping I discovered two interesting facts on the
subjects.
> First,human height is not wholly determined by the genetic
> charcteristics of family. It is a multifacetted process genetically
> and environmentally. There is one genetic button that turns on the
> growth hormone,for instance, and this process could also be
influenced
> by diet of the mother before birth, diet of the child,illness, etc.
>
> Second, hair that is left on a body post mortem becomes lighter due
to
> oxidation.
>
> As for rumors of Cicely Neville being a trollope, well I seem to
> recall that a lot of this came from Warwick, her nephew, when he was
> at Louis XI's court trying to discredit Edward. Warwick had also
been
> involved in slandering Margaret of Anjou, accusing her of adultery
> ,and claiming that her son was not H6's.

I don't believe one fall from grace in an marriage to which she she
had never been in a position to give proper consent makes a woman a
trollope. She was a small child when she was settled on Richard Duke
of York. I think there has been some tendency for historians
resistant to the idea of Edward's illegitimacy to use this argument
as a sort of emotional blackmail. I would say the real problem is in
letting go of the romantic notion that the couple had been
inseparable since childhood. The inseparability seems to have started
quite late, and the Cecily of the earlier years of the marriage could
well have been neglected and disgruntled. We just don't know.

The reports on the continent in 1469 did indeed come from Warwick.
However, it is not really possible to attribute the "slanders" of
both queens merely to Warwick's poisoned tongue. As far as I'm aware,
there is only one report linking Warwick to the story of Queen
Margaret's adultery, and that is his allegation to the Bishop of
Terni in 1460 that "the royal power is in the hands of his [Henry's]
wife and those who defile the royal chamber." Various chronicles are
agreed that suspicions about Edward's parentage back in 1453 were
general throughout the population.
As far as the Edward IV slander is concerned, if you look at the
entire thing in context it begins to look like a much bigger problem.
Firstly, it surfaces in the context of rebellion by Warwick and
Clarence. This may simply have been masterminded by Warwick, looking
for a cynical excuse to make his daughter queen, but if so Clarence
was sufficiently convinced as to have nursed the belief in his
brother's illegitimacy and his own right to the throne right up to
the end, long after Warwick's death. He appears to have feared
Edward, and become quite paranoid about what Edward might do to put
his family out of the picture. Also, if Warwick totally invented the
story, it is a bit of a coincidence that then we find (or MKJ finds)
that York really was absent on campaign when Edward was most likely
to have been conceived.
As soon as Edward dies we get a written report that the initiator of
the story was in fact Cecily. And if we look back to 1469 we do see
an apparent rift between Cecily the King, hastily and incompletely
patched up. Michael Jones says she was deprived of Fotheringhay in
return for a ruinous Berkhamsted. Joanna Laynesmith says Berkhamsted
wasn't ruinous and was well placed, and it was probably voluntary.
Let's look at the facts. Berkhamsted probably wasn't ruinous, fair
enough, although to be fair to MKJ you'd think it was looking at the
old guide book which I have. It was used occasionally, and it now
looks as though most of the damage took place in the 16th century,
when the fabric was rifled for the building of a nearby mansion.
However, Cecily had made a lot of improvements to Fotheringhay during
the 1460s and it was almost certainly in better shape than
Berkahmsted, so her change of heart would need explaining. At the
time she wrote her MA dissertation on Cecily, at any rate, Laynesmith
appears to have believed Berkahmsted to have been better placed than
it was, describing Akeman Street, the road on which it lies, as being
the Roman road to London. In fact, Akeman Street runs east-west, and
connects Bath (Aquae Sulis) with St Albans (Verulamium). There is
also an apparent delay between Cecily losing Fotheringhay and being
given Berkhamsted. The patent for the grant of Berkhamsted is dated
4th March, but it refers to the date of her "surrender" of
Fotheringhay as 8th February. It also, rather tellingly, includes the
King's promise that "if she be in any way removed from the same she
shall be fully compensated". And Edward's constable of the castle was
to remain in office.
That March, Edward's third daughter was finally named for his mother.
Traditionally, the first daughter should have been so named. If he
wanted to honour his queen first, okay, but why was the second
daughter given the compromise name of Mary? Laynesmith says that the
Duchess Cecily was probably one of baby Cecily's two godmothers
(girls got two godmothers & one godfather), and states that the other
two godparents were Jacquetta and Warwick. An interesting trio. Also
interesting that we have the names of the other two for certain.

Cecily then visits Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich before they
sailed for Calais for the marriage with Isabel. To talk them out of
the marriage? Well, if she knew what was going on, why didn't she
warn Edward? He had no idea. If she didn't know what was going on,
why hadn't she accompanied Edward on his progress? It fits the facts
rather better to suppose that she knew of the wedding plans at the
very least, and approved of them.
There's more. I could go on. But something was going on with Cecily
in 1469 - and very possibly in 1470.
The truth of Edward IV's illegitimacy isn't provable, but it isn't so
easily dismissed.

Marie






---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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 , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> Hasn't it been surmised that a lot of Richard's deformity in More's
work was a private joke because More bore more than a passing
resemblance to Richard himself?


There is a remarkably strong resemblance between Richard and More in
the ost famous portraits of each.

But though More loved puns, especially Latin/English ones (a favorite
revolves around "more" meaning fool in Latin) I don't think he was
joking about Richard. In his characteristic over-written style, he
practically foams at the mouth about what a mishapen mis-born monster
he was. He says he was born feet first after two years in the womb,
with long hair and teeth and glaring eyes. What, no horns or tail?
Interestingly, though, More does not say he was a hunchback...he goes
on about a withered arm Richard clearly did not have. Not that you'd
notice with his clothes on, anyway.

More was only five years old when the events of Edward's death and
Richard's taking the throne occurred. He didn't have any first-hand
information

Katy

I've heard that (although as a Ricardian, I know I should be skeptical about things that I've "heard") that More was reputed in his own time to have uneven shoulders and a visible limp.

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> Hasn't it been surmised that a lot of Richard's deformity in More's
work was a private joke because More bore more than a passing
resemblance to Richard himself?


There is a remarkably strong resemblance between Richard and More in
the ost famous portraits of each.

But though More loved puns, especially Latin/English ones (a favorite
revolves around "more" meaning fool in Latin) I don't think he was
joking about Richard. In his characteristic over-written style, he
practically foams at the mouth about what a mishapen mis-born monster
he was. He says he was born feet first after two years in the womb,
with long hair and teeth and glaring eyes. What, no horns or tail?
Interestingly, though, More does not say he was a hunchback...he goes
on about a withered arm Richard clearly did not have. Not that you'd
notice with his clothes on, anyway.

More was only five years old when the events of Edward's death and
Richard's taking the throne occurred. He didn't have any first-hand
information

Katy





SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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 , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> I've heard that (although as a Ricardian, I know I should be
skeptical about things that I've "heard") that More was reputed in his
own time to have uneven shoulders and a visible limp.

Well, uneven shoulders at any rate. There was a brief note about it in
the Ricardian once. Erasmus wrote that he noticed, when More was
walking in front of him, that he had one shoulder higher than the
other. Probably More didn't even realise. More fool him, then (as
Erasmus also, discreetly, observed).

Marie

> Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had produced,
> exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
>
> Katy

This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the death
of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the crown,
certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from John
of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian estates
were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife Blanche of
Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on the
Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One of
them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But convention
seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign nobility.
However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think his
heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with making a
claim.
The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the Hollands. So
it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have made
out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way back from
Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York, but
after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the Duchy
of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed Lancastrian
claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor history I
wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when considering the
succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor relatives
and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly superior
to any of them.

In /*The Last Knight*/, which is Norman Cantor's book about the world of
John of Gaunt, there is an extensive passage in which Cantor crawls into
the mind of Henry the Navigator (Gaunt's grandson) to conjecture about
how Henry might rationalize the slave trade in which he was the major
player:

* Africans are heathen; therefore, they are condemned to hell.
* Neither Jesus nor Paul condemns slavery
* The earthly 'city' is differentiated from the heavenly 'city', and
since we do not understand the workings of the heavenly 'city', we
should just get on about our business and let God sort it out
* Slavery has always existed, so it must somehow be part of the
natural order
* White is inherently good; black is inherently evil
* Thus, even though blacks might convert to Catholicism, their blood
is still inherently inferior
* I am ennobled by my pure northern blood (Gaunt's bloodline), but
am lessened by my moor-tinged Iberian blood
* We must not allow intermarriage to taint our blood

Cantor also briefly extrapolates inherent racism back into Gaunt's time
and beyond.

I suppose Henry the Navigator had as good claim to the English throne as
anyone. Isabella of Castile also had a claim, but it was inferior to the
Portuguese claim.

Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
nicer bunch of fellows.




theblackprussian wrote:

>
> > Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had produced,
> > exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
> >
> > Katy
>
> This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the death
> of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
> If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the crown,
> certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from John
> of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian estates
> were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife Blanche of
> Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on the
> Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One of
> them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But convention
> seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign nobility.
> However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think his
> heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with making a
> claim.
> The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the Hollands. So
> it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
> Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have made
> out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way back from
> Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York, but
> after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
> Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
> As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the Duchy
> of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed Lancastrian
> claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor history I
> wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
> Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when considering the
> succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor relatives
> and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly superior
> to any of them.
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
Ann


Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
nicer bunch of fellows.




theblackprussian wrote:

>
> > Henry VI, gazing in amazement on the infant his queen had produced,
> > exclaimed that he must have been fathered by the Holy Ghost.
> >
> > Katy
>
> This raises the question of the Lancastrian succession. On the death
> of Henry VI, who was the rightful Lancastrian heir?
> If we consider the Duchy of Lancaster as distinct from the crown,
> certainly not the Beauforts and Tudors, who were decended from John
> of Gaunt by his mistress Katherine Swynford. The Lancastrian estates
> were aquired by Gaunt through marriage to his first wife Blanche of
> Lancaster, so it is HER decendents who had rightful claim on the
> Duchy. In 1471 these would be the heirs of her 2 daughters. One of
> them married King John of Portugal and had 4 sons. But convention
> seems to have been that such claims are waived by foreign nobility.
> However their sister married the Duke of Burgundy, and I think his
> heir (the husband of Margaret of York) may have toyed with making a
> claim.
> The other daughter of Gaunt and Blanche married into the Hollands. So
> it seems that Henry Holland's feeble uprising and claim to the
> Lancastrian estates was not as ridiculous as historians have made
> out. After Edward IV had Exeter thrown overboard on the way back from
> Calais his heir would have been his daughter by Anne of York, but
> after her death the line would seem to have gone to the Earl of
> Westmoreland through a sister of Exeter.
> As far as I know the Westmoreland line never laid claim to the Duchy
> of Lancaster (and of course by implication the flawed Lancastrian
> claim to the Crown), but as I'm not too familiar with Tudor history I
> wonder if anyone knows where this claim would lie today?
> Henry VI seems to have ignored the Holland line when considering the
> succession in favour of promoting his Beaufort and Tudor relatives
> and (odly) the Staffords, but the Holland claim is clearly superior
> to any of them.
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>








SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
Ann


Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
nicer bunch of fellows.

================================

Well, you can argue that pretty much every royal house produced as many rotten apples as good ones, and the Trastamaras are a fair example of this kind of thing. They did, however, produce some sharp brains which knew how to play the rough games: Juan II of Aragon and his son Fernando; Isabel the Catholic; Catherine of Aragon, who gave Henry VIII a run for his money; Catherine's sister Juana of Castile had a magnificent mind, but an unstable one which the people around her succeeded in giving enough pushes to for an overthrow. The father of Isabel the Catholic, Juan II of Castile, made a bad king on the political front, but was a major force in the cultural and artistic development of the kingdom, and had enough intelligence to leave the actual governing of the realm to his brilliant favorite, don Alvaro de Luna).

Pedro the Cruel managed to sneak back into the dyanastic lineup via his daughter Constanza, who married John of Gaunt. Their daughter Catherine, became queen consort of the Trastamara king of Castile, Enrique III ("the Ailing"), and thus became the grandmother of Isabel the Catholic.

In Castile and Aragon, in particular, you didn't really want to be nice: it did you little good and much harm. Enrique IV was essentially harmless as a human being and much put-upon, and a pacifist on top of everything else. In the presence of his former tutor, Bishop Barrientos, when civil war was threatening, Enrique proposed trying to avoid it, and was accused of cowardice by Barrientos. Enrique observed that, since the bishop had no children, it was easy for him to send others into battle. Barrientos, grand old bulldog that he was, stormed that Enrique would go down in history as the worst king Castile would ever know. He was pretty much right.

Incidentally, I am a very happy camper today because a book I've wanted for decades has finally made it into my hands: an account of a trip through Iberia in around 1490 by a German diplomat named Hieronymus Munzer -- he met the Catholic kings and their children and made some interesting comments on them. Now I get to read them in context.

Maria
elena@...

One of my hobbies is cataloguing the really nice guys of late medieval
and early renaissance periods. Some examples include Vlad the Impaler,
Cesare Borgia and the conquistadores. Leo X and Julius II may also be
worthy of consideration, but I'd have to do a little more research. The
forum might consider running a poll to discover who was actually the
nicest guy of the lot.

Seriously, you're right about the need for toughness in those times--and
not just in Castile and Aragon. Machiavelli summed it all up very well.

I'm not trying to be a moral relativist, but even if Richard were the
heinous beast that much of history has taught us to know and love, he
pretty much pales by comparison with some of these other individuals.

Maria wrote:

> Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his
> half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
> Ann
>
>
> Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
> was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
> lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
> nicer bunch of fellows.
>
> ================================
>
> Well, you can argue that pretty much every royal house produced as
> many rotten apples as good ones, and the Trastamaras are a fair
> example of this kind of thing. They did, however, produce some sharp
> brains which knew how to play the rough games: Juan II of Aragon and
> his son Fernando; Isabel the Catholic; Catherine of Aragon, who gave
> Henry VIII a run for his money; Catherine's sister Juana of Castile
> had a magnificent mind, but an unstable one which the people around
> her succeeded in giving enough pushes to for an overthrow. The father
> of Isabel the Catholic, Juan II of Castile, made a bad king on the
> political front, but was a major force in the cultural and artistic
> development of the kingdom, and had enough intelligence to leave the
> actual governing of the realm to his brilliant favorite, don Alvaro de
> Luna).
>
> Pedro the Cruel managed to sneak back into the dyanastic lineup via
> his daughter Constanza, who married John of Gaunt. Their daughter
> Catherine, became queen consort of the Trastamara king of Castile,
> Enrique III ("the Ailing"), and thus became the grandmother of Isabel
> the Catholic.
>
> In Castile and Aragon, in particular, you didn't really want to be
> nice: it did you little good and much harm. Enrique IV was
> essentially harmless as a human being and much put-upon, and a
> pacifist on top of everything else. In the presence of his former
> tutor, Bishop Barrientos, when civil war was threatening, Enrique
> proposed trying to avoid it, and was accused of cowardice by
> Barrientos. Enrique observed that, since the bishop had no children,
> it was easy for him to send others into battle. Barrientos, grand old
> bulldog that he was, stormed that Enrique would go down in history as
> the worst king Castile would ever know. He was pretty much right.
>
> Incidentally, I am a very happy camper today because a book I've
> wanted for decades has finally made it into my hands: an account of a
> trip through Iberia in around 1490 by a German diplomat named
> Hieronymus Munzer -- he met the Catholic kings and their children and
> made some interesting comments on them. Now I get to read them in
> context.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Will
Do some research on Reginald de Grey 1362 -1440 of Ruthyn, Denbighshire Wales. The Welsh people still hate the English to this day because of him.

Reginald is also known as Reynold de Grey. He married first Margaret de Ros, and second Joan de Asteley. Joan de Asteley and Reginald had a son Edward m. Elizabeth de Ferrers. Their son John d. 1461 m. Elizabeth Woodville.

You also might want to go back a bit earlier for one of Reginald's kinfolk, Hugh de Grey of Chillingham. This batch of de Grey operated the most notorious torture chamber in medieval England.

The de Greys were not nice people. Lots of power in and around/behind the throne for centuries. Their goal appears to have been to get one of their own on the throne.

They succeeded with Lady Jane Grey the Nine Day Queen, who btw, married her cousin Guildford Dudley grandson of Elizabeth de Grey daughter of Edward de Grey m. Elizabeth Talbot.

Edward was the brother of John de Grey m. Elizabeth Woodville. Lady Jane descends from these folks, via Thomas Marquis of Dorset de Grey.

Elizabeth Talbot who married Edward de Grey is the neice of Eleanor Talbot contracted to marry Edward IV. Guildford is Edward's descendent.

Regards
Roslyn

William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
One of my hobbies is cataloguing the really nice guys of late medieval
and early renaissance periods. Some examples include Vlad the Impaler,
Cesare Borgia and the conquistadores. Leo X and Julius II may also be
worthy of consideration, but I'd have to do a little more research. The
forum might consider running a poll to discover who was actually the
nicest guy of the lot.

Seriously, you're right about the need for toughness in those times--and
not just in Castile and Aragon. Machiavelli summed it all up very well.

I'm not trying to be a moral relativist, but even if Richard were the
heinous beast that much of history has taught us to know and love, he
pretty much pales by comparison with some of these other individuals.

Maria wrote:

> Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his
> half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
> Ann
>
>
> Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
> was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
> lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
> nicer bunch of fellows.
>
> ================================
>
> Well, you can argue that pretty much every royal house produced as
> many rotten apples as good ones, and the Trastamaras are a fair
> example of this kind of thing. They did, however, produce some sharp
> brains which knew how to play the rough games: Juan II of Aragon and
> his son Fernando; Isabel the Catholic; Catherine of Aragon, who gave
> Henry VIII a run for his money; Catherine's sister Juana of Castile
> had a magnificent mind, but an unstable one which the people around
> her succeeded in giving enough pushes to for an overthrow. The father
> of Isabel the Catholic, Juan II of Castile, made a bad king on the
> political front, but was a major force in the cultural and artistic
> development of the kingdom, and had enough intelligence to leave the
> actual governing of the realm to his brilliant favorite, don Alvaro de
> Luna).
>
> Pedro the Cruel managed to sneak back into the dyanastic lineup via
> his daughter Constanza, who married John of Gaunt. Their daughter
> Catherine, became queen consort of the Trastamara king of Castile,
> Enrique III ("the Ailing"), and thus became the grandmother of Isabel
> the Catholic.
>
> In Castile and Aragon, in particular, you didn't really want to be
> nice: it did you little good and much harm. Enrique IV was
> essentially harmless as a human being and much put-upon, and a
> pacifist on top of everything else. In the presence of his former
> tutor, Bishop Barrientos, when civil war was threatening, Enrique
> proposed trying to avoid it, and was accused of cowardice by
> Barrientos. Enrique observed that, since the bishop had no children,
> it was easy for him to send others into battle. Barrientos, grand old
> bulldog that he was, stormed that Enrique would go down in history as
> the worst king Castile would ever know. He was pretty much right.
>
> Incidentally, I am a very happy camper today because a book I've
> wanted for decades has finally made it into my hands: an account of a
> trip through Iberia in around 1490 by a German diplomat named
> Hieronymus Munzer -- he met the Catholic kings and their children and
> made some interesting comments on them. Now I get to read them in
> context.
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

Ah yes, those Greys...

Then there was Sir John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, Edward IV's old
buddy who had a penchant for impaling people. I was just telling my
wife that Sir John was my kind of guy.

fayre rose wrote:

> Will
> Do some research on Reginald de Grey 1362 -1440 of Ruthyn,
> Denbighshire Wales. The Welsh people still hate the English to this
> day because of him.
>
> Reginald is also known as Reynold de Grey. He married first Margaret
> de Ros, and second Joan de Asteley. Joan de Asteley and Reginald had a
> son Edward m. Elizabeth de Ferrers. Their son John d. 1461 m.
> Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> You also might want to go back a bit earlier for one of Reginald's
> kinfolk, Hugh de Grey of Chillingham. This batch of de Grey operated
> the most notorious torture chamber in medieval England.
>
> The de Greys were not nice people. Lots of power in and
> around/behind the throne for centuries. Their goal appears to have
> been to get one of their own on the throne.
>
> They succeeded with Lady Jane Grey the Nine Day Queen, who btw,
> married her cousin Guildford Dudley grandson of Elizabeth de Grey
> daughter of Edward de Grey m. Elizabeth Talbot.
>
> Edward was the brother of John de Grey m. Elizabeth Woodville. Lady
> Jane descends from these folks, via Thomas Marquis of Dorset de Grey.
>
> Elizabeth Talbot who married Edward de Grey is the neice of Eleanor
> Talbot contracted to marry Edward IV. Guildford is Edward's descendent.
>
> Regards
> Roslyn
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> One of my hobbies is cataloguing the really nice guys of late medieval
> and early renaissance periods. Some examples include Vlad the Impaler,
> Cesare Borgia and the conquistadores. Leo X and Julius II may also be
> worthy of consideration, but I'd have to do a little more research. The
> forum might consider running a poll to discover who was actually the
> nicest guy of the lot.
>
> Seriously, you're right about the need for toughness in those times--and
> not just in Castile and Aragon. Machiavelli summed it all up very well.
>
> I'm not trying to be a moral relativist, but even if Richard were the
> heinous beast that much of history has taught us to know and love, he
> pretty much pales by comparison with some of these other individuals.
>
> Maria wrote:
>
> > Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his
> > half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
> > was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
> > lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
> > nicer bunch of fellows.
> >
> > ================================
> >
> > Well, you can argue that pretty much every royal house produced as
> > many rotten apples as good ones, and the Trastamaras are a fair
> > example of this kind of thing. They did, however, produce some sharp
> > brains which knew how to play the rough games: Juan II of Aragon and
> > his son Fernando; Isabel the Catholic; Catherine of Aragon, who gave
> > Henry VIII a run for his money; Catherine's sister Juana of Castile
> > had a magnificent mind, but an unstable one which the people around
> > her succeeded in giving enough pushes to for an overthrow. The father
> > of Isabel the Catholic, Juan II of Castile, made a bad king on the
> > political front, but was a major force in the cultural and artistic
> > development of the kingdom, and had enough intelligence to leave the
> > actual governing of the realm to his brilliant favorite, don Alvaro de
> > Luna).
> >
> > Pedro the Cruel managed to sneak back into the dyanastic lineup via
> > his daughter Constanza, who married John of Gaunt. Their daughter
> > Catherine, became queen consort of the Trastamara king of Castile,
> > Enrique III ("the Ailing"), and thus became the grandmother of Isabel
> > the Catholic.
> >
> > In Castile and Aragon, in particular, you didn't really want to be
> > nice: it did you little good and much harm. Enrique IV was
> > essentially harmless as a human being and much put-upon, and a
> > pacifist on top of everything else. In the presence of his former
> > tutor, Bishop Barrientos, when civil war was threatening, Enrique
> > proposed trying to avoid it, and was accused of cowardice by
> > Barrientos. Enrique observed that, since the bishop had no children,
> > it was easy for him to send others into battle. Barrientos, grand old
> > bulldog that he was, stormed that Enrique would go down in history as
> > the worst king Castile would ever know. He was pretty much right.
> >
> > Incidentally, I am a very happy camper today because a book I've
> > wanted for decades has finally made it into my hands: an account of a
> > trip through Iberia in around 1490 by a German diplomat named
> > Hieronymus Munzer -- he met the Catholic kings and their children and
> > made some interesting comments on them. Now I get to read them in
> > context.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@...
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone
> card United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

with an interest in vlad, i can see where tiptoft could intrigue you. i've not followed the tiptofts. but i have been researching the de greys for a number of years.

with luck, next week i may be able to participate more fully with this forum for a while, but family birthdays and christmas etc. also starts to kick in.

i have a friend who has a genealogical interest in tiptoft. she doesn't tend to actively participate in forums, but likes to lurk. she's also not much of ricardian, but i'm working on corrupting her..:-)) i've shared the homepage url with her, and a couple of postings. she might send me a message to post if she is following the forum at her leisure.

overall, it really is surprising when you look at all the nasty people in the medieval era, how ric iii developed such a bad public image, but then again the tudor propagandists did a rather excellent job.

i think i may have even discovered who the tudor "paper-shredder" was.

going from the top of my head. it was richard fox, he replaced stillington as the bishop of bath. i could be wrong about the name. he connects to margaret beaufort/h7's mother, as her confessor, or a friend of the confessor.

sorry for not being accurate. it's been a long day and i've not done much research on this person. just a preliminary scoot about for a bit more info after i found the name.

perhaps one or more of you can continue to follow up on him.

if i find the time in the next while, i'm make the accurate corrections. i'm almost certain the surname is fox, because i wondered if guy fawkes might be related when i first began to suspect him as being "ye royale parchment shredder."

regards
roslyn



William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
Ah yes, those Greys...

Then there was Sir John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, Edward IV's old
buddy who had a penchant for impaling people. I was just telling my
wife that Sir John was my kind of guy.

fayre rose wrote:

> Will
> Do some research on Reginald de Grey 1362 -1440 of Ruthyn,
> Denbighshire Wales. The Welsh people still hate the English to this
> day because of him.
>
> Reginald is also known as Reynold de Grey. He married first Margaret
> de Ros, and second Joan de Asteley. Joan de Asteley and Reginald had a
> son Edward m. Elizabeth de Ferrers. Their son John d. 1461 m.
> Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> You also might want to go back a bit earlier for one of Reginald's
> kinfolk, Hugh de Grey of Chillingham. This batch of de Grey operated
> the most notorious torture chamber in medieval England.
>
> The de Greys were not nice people. Lots of power in and
> around/behind the throne for centuries. Their goal appears to have
> been to get one of their own on the throne.
>
> They succeeded with Lady Jane Grey the Nine Day Queen, who btw,
> married her cousin Guildford Dudley grandson of Elizabeth de Grey
> daughter of Edward de Grey m. Elizabeth Talbot.
>
> Edward was the brother of John de Grey m. Elizabeth Woodville. Lady
> Jane descends from these folks, via Thomas Marquis of Dorset de Grey.
>
> Elizabeth Talbot who married Edward de Grey is the neice of Eleanor
> Talbot contracted to marry Edward IV. Guildford is Edward's descendent.
>
> Regards
> Roslyn
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> One of my hobbies is cataloguing the really nice guys of late medieval
> and early renaissance periods. Some examples include Vlad the Impaler,
> Cesare Borgia and the conquistadores. Leo X and Julius II may also be
> worthy of consideration, but I'd have to do a little more research. The
> forum might consider running a poll to discover who was actually the
> nicest guy of the lot.
>
> Seriously, you're right about the need for toughness in those times--and
> not just in Castile and Aragon. Machiavelli summed it all up very well.
>
> I'm not trying to be a moral relativist, but even if Richard were the
> heinous beast that much of history has taught us to know and love, he
> pretty much pales by comparison with some of these other individuals.
>
> Maria wrote:
>
> > Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his
> > half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
> > was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
> > lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
> > nicer bunch of fellows.
> >
> > ================================
> >
> > Well, you can argue that pretty much every royal house produced as
> > many rotten apples as good ones, and the Trastamaras are a fair
> > example of this kind of thing. They did, however, produce some sharp
> > brains which knew how to play the rough games: Juan II of Aragon and
> > his son Fernando; Isabel the Catholic; Catherine of Aragon, who gave
> > Henry VIII a run for his money; Catherine's sister Juana of Castile
> > had a magnificent mind, but an unstable one which the people around
> > her succeeded in giving enough pushes to for an overthrow. The father
> > of Isabel the Catholic, Juan II of Castile, made a bad king on the
> > political front, but was a major force in the cultural and artistic
> > development of the kingdom, and had enough intelligence to leave the
> > actual governing of the realm to his brilliant favorite, don Alvaro de
> > Luna).
> >
> > Pedro the Cruel managed to sneak back into the dyanastic lineup via
> > his daughter Constanza, who married John of Gaunt. Their daughter
> > Catherine, became queen consort of the Trastamara king of Castile,
> > Enrique III ("the Ailing"), and thus became the grandmother of Isabel
> > the Catholic.
> >
> > In Castile and Aragon, in particular, you didn't really want to be
> > nice: it did you little good and much harm. Enrique IV was
> > essentially harmless as a human being and much put-upon, and a
> > pacifist on top of everything else. In the presence of his former
> > tutor, Bishop Barrientos, when civil war was threatening, Enrique
> > proposed trying to avoid it, and was accused of cowardice by
> > Barrientos. Enrique observed that, since the bishop had no children,
> > it was easy for him to send others into battle. Barrientos, grand old
> > bulldog that he was, stormed that Enrique would go down in history as
> > the worst king Castile would ever know. He was pretty much right.
> >
> > Incidentally, I am a very happy camper today because a book I've
> > wanted for decades has finally made it into my hands: an account of a
> > trip through Iberia in around 1490 by a German diplomat named
> > Hieronymus Munzer -- he met the Catholic kings and their children and
> > made some interesting comments on them. Now I get to read them in
> > context.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@...
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone
> card United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

Interesting - in all my research I've never come across any
connection between the "northern" Grays of
Heton/Chillingham/Powys/Tankerville and the "southern" Greys of
Essex/Beds/Ruthyn etc. I've always assumed the two clans to be
unrelated, so the different spellings seemed to be a convenient way
to distinguish between them. The arms are certainly different, with
the Grays using a white lion on red, and the Greys a barry of blue
and white.


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
> Will
> Do some research on Reginald de Grey 1362 -1440 of Ruthyn,
Denbighshire Wales. The Welsh people still hate the English to this
day because of him.
>
> Reginald is also known as Reynold de Grey. He married first
Margaret de Ros, and second Joan de Asteley. Joan de Asteley and
Reginald had a son Edward m. Elizabeth de Ferrers. Their son John d.
1461 m. Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> You also might want to go back a bit earlier for one of
Reginald's kinfolk, Hugh de Grey of Chillingham. This batch of de
Grey operated the most notorious torture chamber in medieval England.
>
> The de Greys were not nice people. Lots of power in and
around/behind the throne for centuries. Their goal appears to have
been to get one of their own on the throne.
>
> They succeeded with Lady Jane Grey the Nine Day Queen, who btw,
married her cousin Guildford Dudley grandson of Elizabeth de Grey
daughter of Edward de Grey m. Elizabeth Talbot.
>
> Edward was the brother of John de Grey m. Elizabeth Woodville.
Lady Jane descends from these folks, via Thomas Marquis of Dorset de
Grey.
>
> Elizabeth Talbot who married Edward de Grey is the neice of
Eleanor Talbot contracted to marry Edward IV. Guildford is Edward's
descendent.
>
> Regards
> Roslyn
>
>

the grey/gray families descend from henry de grey m. iseult bardolf/ph.

even within the same family one can find older/heir children using grey and younger children using gray. there were no hard and fast rules to spelling.

my theory is that the northern areas used gray because of a more saxon influence on language. the saxon word for grey/gray is graeg.

the gray family in scotland descends from hugh of chillingham.

again, i'm short on time to correctly reply.

chris phillips has some wonderful medieval genealogy pages, with links to other vetted sources. his compiled updates to the complete peerage are available here.
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/index.shtml

the complete peerage is a more respected source than burkes.

as to why the differences in the coat of arms, i've not a clue.

heraldry is something i'm struggling to learn. very complex science/art that..:-))
it might be worth investigating the matriachal lineage for the northern grey/gray families to determine if the maternal line used a rampant lion, and was perhaps thought to be more powerful in those areas.

one of the grey families even changes their surname to marmion.

roslyn


theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Interesting - in all my research I've never come across any
connection between the "northern" Grays of
Heton/Chillingham/Powys/Tankerville and the "southern" Greys of
Essex/Beds/Ruthyn etc. I've always assumed the two clans to be
unrelated, so the different spellings seemed to be a convenient way
to distinguish between them. The arms are certainly different, with
the Grays using a white lion on red, and the Greys a barry of blue
and white.


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@y...> wrote:
>
> Will
> Do some research on Reginald de Grey 1362 -1440 of Ruthyn,
Denbighshire Wales. The Welsh people still hate the English to this
day because of him.
>
> Reginald is also known as Reynold de Grey. He married first
Margaret de Ros, and second Joan de Asteley. Joan de Asteley and
Reginald had a son Edward m. Elizabeth de Ferrers. Their son John d.
1461 m. Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> You also might want to go back a bit earlier for one of
Reginald's kinfolk, Hugh de Grey of Chillingham. This batch of de
Grey operated the most notorious torture chamber in medieval England.
>
> The de Greys were not nice people. Lots of power in and
around/behind the throne for centuries. Their goal appears to have
been to get one of their own on the throne.
>
> They succeeded with Lady Jane Grey the Nine Day Queen, who btw,
married her cousin Guildford Dudley grandson of Elizabeth de Grey
daughter of Edward de Grey m. Elizabeth Talbot.
>
> Edward was the brother of John de Grey m. Elizabeth Woodville.
Lady Jane descends from these folks, via Thomas Marquis of Dorset de
Grey.
>
> Elizabeth Talbot who married Edward de Grey is the neice of
Eleanor Talbot contracted to marry Edward IV. Guildford is Edward's
descendent.
>
> Regards
> Roslyn
>
>





SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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

john fisher was margaret beaufort/tudor's confessor, richard fox was fisher's friend and executor of margaret's will. fox was stillington's replacement as bishop of bath, among other appointments.

fox is the one i think was the tudor paper shredder.

source of info..the oxford dictionary national bio's.
topics
margaret beaufort/tudor
robert stillington
richard fox

regarding stillington this extract from odnb...
By fifteenth-century standards Stillington was a notable pluralist: in
1461 he was confirmed as dean of St Martin's and archdeacon of
Colchester and Taunton; held three additional prebends at York, St
David's, and St Stephen's, Westminster; and was rector of Ashbury in
Berkshire. He was to become archdeacon of Berkshire in 1464 and in 1465
archdeacon of Wells. He gave little or no service in person to any of
these preferments, and was licensed to visit his archdeaconry by deputy
from 1451. Provided to succeed Beckington as bishop of Bath and Wells
on 30 June 1465 and consecrated on 16 March 1466, he gave up all his
benefices except St Martin's, which he retained until 1485. During his
25-year episcopate he is recorded in Somerset only once, in 1476, which
is evidence for an exceptional lack of commitment to his pastoral
duties.

i'm somewhat geographically challenged when it comes to england, but isn't taunton in somerset?

the odnb continues
Stillington's brushes with the crown are difficult to explain. Between
27 February and 5 March 1478 he was arrested and imprisoned in the
Tower of London. He was examined by the king and council, but having
satisfied them that he had been faithful to the king, and had done
nothing contrary to his oath of fealty, he was pardoned on 20 June
1478. This episode is sometimes explained by collusion in Clarence's
treason, perhaps by telling the duke of Edward IV's precontract of
marriage, but this interpretation seems unlikely, both because
Stillington was only arrested after the dissolution of the parliament
during which Clarence was tried and executed, and because no mention of
the precontract is known at this stage; the allegation that Edward was
a bastard, supposedly repeated by Clarence, can be backdated to 1469.

so...my question is..if taunton is in somerset, could stillington have made his social call there in 1476 to retrieve documents to give to george d. of clarence.?

did the talbots have any landholdings or relatives living in this area? was edward iv in this area at the time of the pre-contract?

or is it a wild goose chase to consider that taunton/somerset is possibly where the "marriage" of edward iv and eleanor talbot/boteler/butler" occurred.


roslyn

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
with an interest in vlad, i can see where tiptoft could intrigue you. i've not followed the tiptofts. but i have been researching the de greys for a number of years.

with luck, next week i may be able to participate more fully with this forum for a while, but family birthdays and christmas etc. also starts to kick in.

i have a friend who has a genealogical interest in tiptoft. she doesn't tend to actively participate in forums, but likes to lurk. she's also not much of ricardian, but i'm working on corrupting her..:-)) i've shared the homepage url with her, and a couple of postings. she might send me a message to post if she is following the forum at her leisure.

overall, it really is surprising when you look at all the nasty people in the medieval era, how ric iii developed such a bad public image, but then again the tudor propagandists did a rather excellent job.

i think i may have even discovered who the tudor "paper-shredder" was.

going from the top of my head. it was richard fox, he replaced stillington as the bishop of bath. i could be wrong about the name. he connects to margaret beaufort/h7's mother, as her confessor, or a friend of the confessor.

sorry for not being accurate. it's been a long day and i've not done much research on this person. just a preliminary scoot about for a bit more info after i found the name.

perhaps one or more of you can continue to follow up on him.

if i find the time in the next while, i'm make the accurate corrections. i'm almost certain the surname is fox, because i wondered if guy fawkes might be related when i first began to suspect him as being "ye royale parchment shredder."

regards
roslyn



William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
Ah yes, those Greys...

Then there was Sir John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, Edward IV's old
buddy who had a penchant for impaling people. I was just telling my
wife that Sir John was my kind of guy.

fayre rose wrote:

> Will
> Do some research on Reginald de Grey 1362 -1440 of Ruthyn,
> Denbighshire Wales. The Welsh people still hate the English to this
> day because of him.
>
> Reginald is also known as Reynold de Grey. He married first Margaret
> de Ros, and second Joan de Asteley. Joan de Asteley and Reginald had a
> son Edward m. Elizabeth de Ferrers. Their son John d. 1461 m.
> Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> You also might want to go back a bit earlier for one of Reginald's
> kinfolk, Hugh de Grey of Chillingham. This batch of de Grey operated
> the most notorious torture chamber in medieval England.
>
> The de Greys were not nice people. Lots of power in and
> around/behind the throne for centuries. Their goal appears to have
> been to get one of their own on the throne.
>
> They succeeded with Lady Jane Grey the Nine Day Queen, who btw,
> married her cousin Guildford Dudley grandson of Elizabeth de Grey
> daughter of Edward de Grey m. Elizabeth Talbot.
>
> Edward was the brother of John de Grey m. Elizabeth Woodville. Lady
> Jane descends from these folks, via Thomas Marquis of Dorset de Grey.
>
> Elizabeth Talbot who married Edward de Grey is the neice of Eleanor
> Talbot contracted to marry Edward IV. Guildford is Edward's descendent.
>
> Regards
> Roslyn
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> One of my hobbies is cataloguing the really nice guys of late medieval
> and early renaissance periods. Some examples include Vlad the Impaler,
> Cesare Borgia and the conquistadores. Leo X and Julius II may also be
> worthy of consideration, but I'd have to do a little more research. The
> forum might consider running a poll to discover who was actually the
> nicest guy of the lot.
>
> Seriously, you're right about the need for toughness in those times--and
> not just in Castile and Aragon. Machiavelli summed it all up very well.
>
> I'm not trying to be a moral relativist, but even if Richard were the
> heinous beast that much of history has taught us to know and love, he
> pretty much pales by comparison with some of these other individuals.
>
> Maria wrote:
>
> > Are you thinking of Enrique of Trastemara's murder of his
> > half-brother, Pedro the Cruel?
> > Ann
> >
> >
> > Speaking of the Iberians, people speak about how 'unnatural' Richard
> > was. How about them there Castilian buddies of the Black Prince? Fine
> > lads. Fine, fine lads. The House of Trastamara too. Couldn't meet a
> > nicer bunch of fellows.
> >
> > ================================
> >
> > Well, you can argue that pretty much every royal house produced as
> > many rotten apples as good ones, and the Trastamaras are a fair
> > example of this kind of thing. They did, however, produce some sharp
> > brains which knew how to play the rough games: Juan II of Aragon and
> > his son Fernando; Isabel the Catholic; Catherine of Aragon, who gave
> > Henry VIII a run for his money; Catherine's sister Juana of Castile
> > had a magnificent mind, but an unstable one which the people around
> > her succeeded in giving enough pushes to for an overthrow. The father
> > of Isabel the Catholic, Juan II of Castile, made a bad king on the
> > political front, but was a major force in the cultural and artistic
> > development of the kingdom, and had enough intelligence to leave the
> > actual governing of the realm to his brilliant favorite, don Alvaro de
> > Luna).
> >
> > Pedro the Cruel managed to sneak back into the dyanastic lineup via
> > his daughter Constanza, who married John of Gaunt. Their daughter
> > Catherine, became queen consort of the Trastamara king of Castile,
> > Enrique III ("the Ailing"), and thus became the grandmother of Isabel
> > the Catholic.
> >
> > In Castile and Aragon, in particular, you didn't really want to be
> > nice: it did you little good and much harm. Enrique IV was
> > essentially harmless as a human being and much put-upon, and a
> > pacifist on top of everything else. In the presence of his former
> > tutor, Bishop Barrientos, when civil war was threatening, Enrique
> > proposed trying to avoid it, and was accused of cowardice by
> > Barrientos. Enrique observed that, since the bishop had no children,
> > it was easy for him to send others into battle. Barrientos, grand old
> > bulldog that he was, stormed that Enrique would go down in history as
> > the worst king Castile would ever know. He was pretty much right.
> >
> > Incidentally, I am a very happy camper today because a book I've
> > wanted for decades has finally made it into my hands: an account of a
> > trip through Iberia in around 1490 by a German diplomat named
> > Hieronymus Munzer -- he met the Catholic kings and their children and
> > made some interesting comments on them. Now I get to read them in
> > context.
> >
> > Maria
> > elena@...
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
> Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone
> card United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>







SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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










SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


Visit your group "" on the web.

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

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


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