A question to Stephen Lark and his Forum.

A question to Stephen Lark and his Forum.

-------

In a letter from Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor ["The Stoner
Letters and Papers" -- Letter No. 331], it is stated that...."The lord
Arsbychpop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely ar zit [yet] in the toure with
Master Olyver Kynge". This is in reference to the council meeting
at which Hastings was arrested. Olyver Kynge is not mentioned in any of
the Chronicles.

Does anyone in the Forum know of this elusive individual?

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

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> A question to Stephen Lark and his Forum.
>
> -------
>
> In a letter from Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor ["The
Stoner
> Letters and Papers" -- Letter No. 331], it is stated that...."The
lord
> Arsbychpop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely ar zit [yet] in the toure
with
> Master Olyver Kynge". This is in reference to the council meeting
> at which Hastings was arrested. Olyver Kynge is not mentioned in
any of
> the Chronicles.
>
> Does anyone in the Forum know of this elusive individual?
>
It's not my forum, just that some of my research has been relevant to
other peoples' posts recently. Anyway, I haven't come across Oliver
King before, however he spells himself.
> --------------------------
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> > A question to Stephen Lark and his Forum.
> >
> > -------
> >
> > In a letter from Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor ["The
> Stoner
> > Letters and Papers" -- Letter No. 331], it is stated that...."The
> lord
> > Arsbychpop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely ar zit [yet] in the toure
> with
> > Master Olyver Kynge". This is in reference to the council meeting
> > at which Hastings was arrested. Olyver Kynge is not mentioned in
> any of
> > the Chronicles.
> >
> > Does anyone in the Forum know of this elusive individual?
> >
> It's not my forum, just that some of my research has been relevant
to
> other peoples' posts recently. Anyway, I haven't come across Oliver
> King before, however he spells himself.
> > --------------------------

I have a photograph of this particular letter (in modern typeface)
which is even mentioned in Tey`s novel A Daughter of Time. Master
Olyver Kynge is specifically mentioned in the letter re the council
meeting after which Hastings was executed. What surprises me is that
as far as I can discover, no one anywhere, including Tey, has picked
up on this guy, who he may be, and what exactly he was doing there.
It may not amount to much but why has nobody investigated him?

Alan
----------------------

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "alanth252"
> > <alanth252@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A question to Stephen Lark and his Forum.
> > >
> > > -------
> > >
> > > In a letter from Simon Stallworth to Sir William Stonor ["The
> > Stoner
> > > Letters and Papers" -- Letter No. 331], it is stated that...."The
> > lord
> > > Arsbychpop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely ar zit [yet] in the toure
> > with
> > > Master Olyver Kynge". This is in reference to the council meeting
> > > at which Hastings was arrested. Olyver Kynge is not mentioned in
> > any of
> > > the Chronicles.
> > >
> > > Does anyone in the Forum know of this elusive individual?
> > >
> > It's not my forum, just that some of my research has been relevant
> to
> > other peoples' posts recently. Anyway, I haven't come across Oliver
> > King before, however he spells himself.
> > > --------------------------
>
> I have a photograph of this particular letter (in modern typeface)
> which is even mentioned in Tey`s novel A Daughter of Time. Master
> Olyver Kynge is specifically mentioned in the letter re the council
> meeting after which Hastings was executed. What surprises me is that
> as far as I can discover, no one anywhere, including Tey, has picked
> up on this guy, who he may be, and what exactly he was doing there.
> It may not amount to much but why has nobody investigated him?
>
> Alan
> ----------------------
>
Alan,
The following article briefly mentions Kynge.
Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Historians,Alison Hanham.
The English Historical Review, Vol. 87, No. 343 (Apr., 1972), pp. 233-248.
It is stated that Kynge was secretary to Edward IV. "It is unclear
whether he is mentioned as prisoner or gentleman jailor".

In this article,
When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
The English Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 353 (Oct., 1974), pp. 835-844.

Kynge is described as Edward V's secretary.
"Among those imprisoned with Rotherham, the dismissed chancellor, and
Morton, both Hastings's known close associates, was Oliver King,
Edward V's secretary".

I know it is not much, but at least it is something. By the way, both
articles discuss the "Friday Last" issue you brought up in your
earlier post.

Howard

Thanks Howard, much appreciated. I had
considered Olyver Kynge being the jailer
because of the way the Stonor Letter was
worded. The Stonor letter doesn`t actually
state that Olyver was at the council meeting,
just that "The lord Archbyschop of Yorke,
the Byschop of Ely ar yet in the toure with
Master Kynge", meaning that Morton and
Rotherham are still in the tower, with one
Olyver Kynge. We know that Rotherham and
Morton were imprisoned, but not that OK was
a prisoner too. But if OK was at the meeting
it begs the question, on whose behalf?
Richard`s or the Woodvilles`? Was he jailer
or jailed? We`ll probably never know.
Thanks again.

Alan

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

> Alan,
> The following article briefly mentions Kynge.
> Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Historians,Alison Hanham.
> The English Historical Review, Vol. 87, No. 343 (Apr., 1972), pp.
233-248.
> It is stated that Kynge was secretary to Edward IV. "It is unclear
> whether he is mentioned as prisoner or gentleman jailor".
>
> In this article,
> When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
> The English Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 353 (Oct., 1974), pp.
835-844.
>
> Kynge is described as Edward V's secretary.
> "Among those imprisoned with Rotherham, the dismissed chancellor,
and
> Morton, both Hastings's known close associates, was Oliver King,
> Edward V's secretary".
>
> I know it is not much, but at least it is something. By the way,
both
> articles discuss the "Friday Last" issue you brought up in your
> earlier post.
>
> Howard

Brevity snip...
>

Alan,

I re-read this article, which could help answer some of the questions
you posed.
When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.

To summarize, Wolffe, spends about 90% of the article providing
evidence for the date of Hastings execution on the 13th. To me he
totally 'de-bunks' any theories of the date being 20th. But, as for
Mr. Oliver King, that is tied into the other 10% of the article, as to
why Hastings lost his head. Nothing to new or radical here, but the
author puts forth in the days before Edward Vth coronation, the
council was split into 2 factions: 1. allowing Richard to continue
with the powers of the protector after the coronation and the other
limiting/ending any powers of the protectorate. Hastings was in the
faction of limiting/ending the powers, thus losing his head.

As for Oliver King, it was stated he was a secretary for Edward IV and
Edward V. That could reasonably explain what he was doing in the
council.

As for him being in the tower. In a letter from Simon Stallworth (a
servant of John Russell), Stallworth writes "the archbishop of York,
the bishop of Ely and Master Oliver King are still in the tower: they
will be released nevertheless (cancelled); their property in London
has been seized". According to Wolfe, later in the letter, Stallworth
crosses out the earlier sentence which stated that "the release of
Rotherham, Morton and King was likely since he understood now that
their country properties were likely to be seized also and wrote
instead that they were not likely to come out yet".

Based on this letter, it is safe to assume King was a prisoner for
presumably being in the faction which wanted to limit Richard's power
after the coronation.
I still wonder if he was a Woodville supporter. Simply because he
supported Edward Vth to assume full power (limiting Richard), does not
necessarily mean he supported the Woodvilles. But, it does look that way.

Anyway, if you are interested (or anyone else), I have this article in
PDF format. I could email it to you. Or if it is possible, I could
post it on the group files section.

Howard




--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Howard, much appreciated. I had
> considered Olyver Kynge being the jailer
> because of the way the Stonor Letter was
> worded. The Stonor letter doesn`t actually
> state that Olyver was at the council meeting,
> just that "The lord Archbyschop of Yorke,
> the Byschop of Ely ar yet in the toure with
> Master Kynge", meaning that Morton and
> Rotherham are still in the tower, with one
> Olyver Kynge. We know that Rotherham and
> Morton were imprisoned, but not that OK was
> a prisoner too. But if OK was at the meeting
> it begs the question, on whose behalf?
> Richard`s or the Woodvilles`? Was he jailer
> or jailed? We`ll probably never know.
> Thanks again.
>
> Alan
>
> ----------------------
>
> > Alan,
> > The following article briefly mentions Kynge.
> > Richard III, Lord Hastings and the Historians,Alison Hanham.
> > The English Historical Review, Vol. 87, No. 343 (Apr., 1972), pp.
> 233-248.
> > It is stated that Kynge was secretary to Edward IV. "It is unclear
> > whether he is mentioned as prisoner or gentleman jailor".
> >
> > In this article,
> > When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
> > The English Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 353 (Oct., 1974), pp.
> 835-844.
> >
> > Kynge is described as Edward V's secretary.
> > "Among those imprisoned with Rotherham, the dismissed chancellor,
> and
> > Morton, both Hastings's known close associates, was Oliver King,
> > Edward V's secretary".
> >
> > I know it is not much, but at least it is something. By the way,
> both
> > articles discuss the "Friday Last" issue you brought up in your
> > earlier post.
> >
> > Howard
>
> Brevity snip...
> >
>

Thanks again Howard. I was a little confused.
I recently read an extract from the Wars of the
Roses by Michael D. Miller in which he states
that...

"Some others, the ministers of his late brother's
government, could be expected to want his son
to succeed him; these included William, Lord
Hastings, Doctor John Morton, Bishop of Ely,
Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York,
Thomas, Lord Stanley, and 0liver Wright, the
late King's secretary, all of whom seemed very
loyal to the memory of King Edward IV."

Notice he calls Edward IV`s secretary " Oliver
Wright" and not "King". I have since confirmed
the latter with Professor Christine Carpenter
(the editor of the Kingsford Stonor Papers).
Where Michael Miller gets the name "Wright"
from I`ve yet to discover.

I`m a tad like you in wondering who King was
acting for. As E4`s secretary was he acting on
behalf of the Woodvilles re Elizabeth and E5,
or for Richard re E4`s will? And was he a
subsequent jailer, or one who was jailed?
I find it strange that we hear no more about
him. Was he deliberately written out of
history by the Tudors? If so, why?

Yes I`d be very grateful if you could Email
that article, either to me personally or to
the group. I have Adobe reader so there
would be no problem for me about PDF format,
but I can`t speak in that regard for other
members. My thanks once again for your help.

Alan


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

--- In , "Howard Heller"
<howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> I re-read this article, which could help answer some of the
questions
> you posed.
> When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
>
> To summarize, Wolffe, spends about 90% of the article providing
> evidence for the date of Hastings execution on the 13th. To me he
> totally 'de-bunks' any theories of the date being 20th. But, as for
> Mr. Oliver King, that is tied into the other 10% of the article, as
to
> why Hastings lost his head. Nothing to new or radical here, but the
> author puts forth in the days before Edward Vth coronation, the
> council was split into 2 factions: 1. allowing Richard to continue
> with the powers of the protector after the coronation and the other
> limiting/ending any powers of the protectorate. Hastings was in the
> faction of limiting/ending the powers, thus losing his head.
>
> As for Oliver King, it was stated he was a secretary for Edward IV
and
> Edward V. That could reasonably explain what he was doing in the
> council.
>
> As for him being in the tower. In a letter from Simon Stallworth (a
> servant of John Russell), Stallworth writes "the archbishop of York,
> the bishop of Ely and Master Oliver King are still in the tower:
they
> will be released nevertheless (cancelled); their property in London
> has been seized". According to Wolfe, later in the letter,
Stallworth
> crosses out the earlier sentence which stated that "the release of
> Rotherham, Morton and King was likely since he understood now that
> their country properties were likely to be seized also and wrote
> instead that they were not likely to come out yet".
>
> Based on this letter, it is safe to assume King was a prisoner for
> presumably being in the faction which wanted to limit Richard's
power
> after the coronation.
> I still wonder if he was a Woodville supporter. Simply because he
> supported Edward Vth to assume full power (limiting Richard), does
not
> necessarily mean he supported the Woodvilles. But, it does look
that way.
>
> Anyway, if you are interested (or anyone else), I have this article
in
> PDF format. I could email it to you. Or if it is possible, I could
> post it on the group files section.
>
> Howard
>

Brevity snip...

--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks again Howard. I was a little confused.
> I recently read an extract from the Wars of the
> Roses by Michael D. Miller in which he states
> that...
>
> "Some others, the ministers of his late brother's
> government, could be expected to want his son
> to succeed him; these included William, Lord
> Hastings, Doctor John Morton, Bishop of Ely,
> Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York,
> Thomas, Lord Stanley, and 0liver Wright, the
> late King's secretary, all of whom seemed very
> loyal to the memory of King Edward IV."
>
> Notice he calls Edward IV`s secretary " Oliver
> Wright" and not "King". I have since confirmed
> the latter with Professor Christine Carpenter
> (the editor of the Kingsford Stonor Papers).
> Where Michael Miller gets the name "Wright"
> from I`ve yet to discover.
>
> I`m a tad like you in wondering who King was
> acting for. As E4`s secretary was he acting on
> behalf of the Woodvilles re Elizabeth and E5,
> or for Richard re E4`s will? And was he a
> subsequent jailer, or one who was jailed?
> I find it strange that we hear no more about
> him. Was he deliberately written out of
> history by the Tudors? If so, why?
>
> Yes I`d be very grateful if you could Email
> that article, either to me personally or to
> the group. I have Adobe reader so there
> would be no problem for me about PDF format,
> but I can`t speak in that regard for other
> members. My thanks once again for your help.
>
> Alan
>
>
> ----------------------
>
> --- In , "Howard Heller"
> <howard_heller@> wrote:
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > I re-read this article, which could help answer some of the
> questions
> > you posed.
> > When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
> >
> > To summarize, Wolffe, spends about 90% of the article providing
> > evidence for the date of Hastings execution on the 13th. To me he
> > totally 'de-bunks' any theories of the date being 20th. But, as
for
> > Mr. Oliver King, that is tied into the other 10% of the article,
as
> to
> > why Hastings lost his head. Nothing to new or radical here, but
the
> > author puts forth in the days before Edward Vth coronation, the
> > council was split into 2 factions: 1. allowing Richard to continue
> > with the powers of the protector after the coronation and the
other
> > limiting/ending any powers of the protectorate. Hastings was in
the
> > faction of limiting/ending the powers, thus losing his head.
> >
> > As for Oliver King, it was stated he was a secretary for Edward
IV
> and
> > Edward V. That could reasonably explain what he was doing in the
> > council.
> >
> > As for him being in the tower. In a letter from Simon Stallworth
(a
> > servant of John Russell), Stallworth writes "the archbishop of
York,
> > the bishop of Ely and Master Oliver King are still in the tower:
> they
> > will be released nevertheless (cancelled); their property in
London
> > has been seized". According to Wolfe, later in the letter,
> Stallworth
> > crosses out the earlier sentence which stated that "the release of
> > Rotherham, Morton and King was likely since he understood now that
> > their country properties were likely to be seized also and wrote
> > instead that they were not likely to come out yet".
> >
> > Based on this letter, it is safe to assume King was a prisoner for
> > presumably being in the faction which wanted to limit Richard's
> power
> > after the coronation.
> > I still wonder if he was a Woodville supporter. Simply because he
> > supported Edward Vth to assume full power (limiting Richard),
does
> not
> > necessarily mean he supported the Woodvilles. But, it does look
> that way.
> >
> > Anyway, if you are interested (or anyone else), I have this
article
> in
> > PDF format. I could email it to you. Or if it is possible, I
could
> > post it on the group files section.
> >
> > Howard
> >
>
> Brevity snip...
>
Friday the thirteenth - did anyone else come to a sticky end on that
date? I know we are bound to think of Easter but that date varies so
much and the number thirteen is differently significant there.

friday the 13th has a negative connotation not only for supposedly being the original good friday, but also for being the date that king phillip of france ordered the arrest and disbanding of the knights templar.


Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
--- In , "alanth252"
<alanth252@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks again Howard. I was a little confused.
> I recently read an extract from the Wars of the
> Roses by Michael D. Miller in which he states
> that...
>
> "Some others, the ministers of his late brother's
> government, could be expected to want his son
> to succeed him; these included William, Lord
> Hastings, Doctor John Morton, Bishop of Ely,
> Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York,
> Thomas, Lord Stanley, and 0liver Wright, the
> late King's secretary, all of whom seemed very
> loyal to the memory of King Edward IV."
>
> Notice he calls Edward IV`s secretary " Oliver
> Wright" and not "King". I have since confirmed
> the latter with Professor Christine Carpenter
> (the editor of the Kingsford Stonor Papers).
> Where Michael Miller gets the name "Wright"
> from I`ve yet to discover.
>
> I`m a tad like you in wondering who King was
> acting for. As E4`s secretary was he acting on
> behalf of the Woodvilles re Elizabeth and E5,
> or for Richard re E4`s will? And was he a
> subsequent jailer, or one who was jailed?
> I find it strange that we hear no more about
> him. Was he deliberately written out of
> history by the Tudors? If so, why?
>
> Yes I`d be very grateful if you could Email
> that article, either to me personally or to
> the group. I have Adobe reader so there
> would be no problem for me about PDF format,
> but I can`t speak in that regard for other
> members. My thanks once again for your help.
>
> Alan
>
>
> ----------------------
>
> --- In , "Howard Heller"
> <howard_heller@> wrote:
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> > I re-read this article, which could help answer some of the
> questions
> > you posed.
> > When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
> >
> > To summarize, Wolffe, spends about 90% of the article providing
> > evidence for the date of Hastings execution on the 13th. To me he
> > totally 'de-bunks' any theories of the date being 20th. But, as
for
> > Mr. Oliver King, that is tied into the other 10% of the article,
as
> to
> > why Hastings lost his head. Nothing to new or radical here, but
the
> > author puts forth in the days before Edward Vth coronation, the
> > council was split into 2 factions: 1. allowing Richard to continue
> > with the powers of the protector after the coronation and the
other
> > limiting/ending any powers of the protectorate. Hastings was in
the
> > faction of limiting/ending the powers, thus losing his head.
> >
> > As for Oliver King, it was stated he was a secretary for Edward
IV
> and
> > Edward V. That could reasonably explain what he was doing in the
> > council.
> >
> > As for him being in the tower. In a letter from Simon Stallworth
(a
> > servant of John Russell), Stallworth writes "the archbishop of
York,
> > the bishop of Ely and Master Oliver King are still in the tower:
> they
> > will be released nevertheless (cancelled); their property in
London
> > has been seized". According to Wolfe, later in the letter,
> Stallworth
> > crosses out the earlier sentence which stated that "the release of
> > Rotherham, Morton and King was likely since he understood now that
> > their country properties were likely to be seized also and wrote
> > instead that they were not likely to come out yet".
> >
> > Based on this letter, it is safe to assume King was a prisoner for
> > presumably being in the faction which wanted to limit Richard's
> power
> > after the coronation.
> > I still wonder if he was a Woodville supporter. Simply because he
> > supported Edward Vth to assume full power (limiting Richard),
does
> not
> > necessarily mean he supported the Woodvilles. But, it does look
> that way.
> >
> > Anyway, if you are interested (or anyone else), I have this
article
> in
> > PDF format. I could email it to you. Or if it is possible, I
could
> > post it on the group files section.
> >
> > Howard
> >
>
> Brevity snip...
>
Friday the thirteenth - did anyone else come to a sticky end on that
date? I know we are bound to think of Easter but that date varies so
much and the number thirteen is differently significant there.

Let me put in a plug for the novels of Michael Jecks, who has a series about
a Knight Templar who evaded the purge of the Order.

(the Friday the 13th round-up of Knights Templar in Paris).



Another thing that is interesting about this series is that it takes place
just after the devastating rains of (I think) 1316-1317 that

wreaked real problems on England - famine, sickness, cannibalism, making
this year's flooding seem insignificant. Crops could

not grow and people died by the thousands. Not that I want to dismiss any
problems people may have had recently, but things

were totally out-of-hand then. There are about 15 novels now in the series.
The first book is titled "The Last Templar".



L.M.L.,

Janet T.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> friday the 13th has a negative connotation not only for supposedly
being the original good friday, but also for being the date that king
phillip of france ordered the arrest and disbanding of the knights
templar.

Thanks, Roslyn (and Janet).
>
>
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> --- In
, "alanth252"
> <alanth252@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks again Howard. I was a little confused.
> > I recently read an extract from the Wars of the
> > Roses by Michael D. Miller in which he states
> > that...
> >
> > "Some others, the ministers of his late brother's
> > government, could be expected to want his son
> > to succeed him; these included William, Lord
> > Hastings, Doctor John Morton, Bishop of Ely,
> > Thomas Rotherham, Archbishop of York,
> > Thomas, Lord Stanley, and 0liver Wright, the
> > late King's secretary, all of whom seemed very
> > loyal to the memory of King Edward IV."
> >
> > Notice he calls Edward IV`s secretary " Oliver
> > Wright" and not "King". I have since confirmed
> > the latter with Professor Christine Carpenter
> > (the editor of the Kingsford Stonor Papers).
> > Where Michael Miller gets the name "Wright"
> > from I`ve yet to discover.
> >
> > I`m a tad like you in wondering who King was
> > acting for. As E4`s secretary was he acting on
> > behalf of the Woodvilles re Elizabeth and E5,
> > or for Richard re E4`s will? And was he a
> > subsequent jailer, or one who was jailed?
> > I find it strange that we hear no more about
> > him. Was he deliberately written out of
> > history by the Tudors? If so, why?
> >
> > Yes I`d be very grateful if you could Email
> > that article, either to me personally or to
> > the group. I have Adobe reader so there
> > would be no problem for me about PDF format,
> > but I can`t speak in that regard for other
> > members. My thanks once again for your help.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > --- In , "Howard Heller"
> > <howard_heller@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan,
> > >
> > > I re-read this article, which could help answer some of the
> > questions
> > > you posed.
> > > When and Why Did Hastings Lose His Head? B. P. Wolffe.
> > >
> > > To summarize, Wolffe, spends about 90% of the article providing
> > > evidence for the date of Hastings execution on the 13th. To me
he
> > > totally 'de-bunks' any theories of the date being 20th. But, as
> for
> > > Mr. Oliver King, that is tied into the other 10% of the
article,
> as
> > to
> > > why Hastings lost his head. Nothing to new or radical here, but
> the
> > > author puts forth in the days before Edward Vth coronation, the
> > > council was split into 2 factions: 1. allowing Richard to
continue
> > > with the powers of the protector after the coronation and the
> other
> > > limiting/ending any powers of the protectorate. Hastings was in
> the
> > > faction of limiting/ending the powers, thus losing his head.
> > >
> > > As for Oliver King, it was stated he was a secretary for Edward
> IV
> > and
> > > Edward V. That could reasonably explain what he was doing in the
> > > council.
> > >
> > > As for him being in the tower. In a letter from Simon
Stallworth
> (a
> > > servant of John Russell), Stallworth writes "the archbishop of
> York,
> > > the bishop of Ely and Master Oliver King are still in the
tower:
> > they
> > > will be released nevertheless (cancelled); their property in
> London
> > > has been seized". According to Wolfe, later in the letter,
> > Stallworth
> > > crosses out the earlier sentence which stated that "the release
of
> > > Rotherham, Morton and King was likely since he understood now
that
> > > their country properties were likely to be seized also and wrote
> > > instead that they were not likely to come out yet".
> > >
> > > Based on this letter, it is safe to assume King was a prisoner
for
> > > presumably being in the faction which wanted to limit Richard's
> > power
> > > after the coronation.
> > > I still wonder if he was a Woodville supporter. Simply because
he
> > > supported Edward Vth to assume full power (limiting Richard),
> does
> > not
> > > necessarily mean he supported the Woodvilles. But, it does look
> > that way.
> > >
> > > Anyway, if you are interested (or anyone else), I have this
> article
> > in
> > > PDF format. I could email it to you. Or if it is possible, I
> could
> > > post it on the group files section.
> > >
> > > Howard
> > >
> >
> > Brevity snip...
> >
> Friday the thirteenth - did anyone else come to a sticky end on
that
> date? I know we are bound to think of Easter but that date varies
so
> much and the number thirteen is differently significant there.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Have read The Last Templar, can thoroughly recommend it.? Will try and source the others


-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Trimbath <forevere@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12.11pm
Subject: Re: A question to Stephen Lark and his Forum.






Let me put in a plug for the novels of Michael Jecks, who has a series about
a Knight Templar who evaded the purge of the Order.

(the Friday the 13th round-up of Knights Templar in Paris).

Another thing that is interesting about this series is that it takes place
just after the devastating rains of (I think) 1316-1317 that

wreaked real problems on England - famine, sickness, cannibalism, making
this year's flooding seem insignificant. Crops could

not grow and people died by the thousands. Not that I want to dismiss any
problems people may have had recently, but things

were totally out-of-hand then. There are about 15 novels now in the series.
The first book is titled "The Last Templar".

L.M.L.,

Janet T.







________________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE AOL Email account with 2GB of storage. Plus, share and store photos and experience exclusively recorded live music Sessions from your favourite artists. Find out more at http://info.aol.co.uk/joinnow/?ncid=548.

Thanks for the book recommendation! I am always
looking for something new/good to read. I really
could use a new series now that the Harry Potter saga
is over. Ouch! It hurts to say that ;-)

Regards,
Rene'