BBC2's forthcoming "The Tydders"

Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
Jeremy Northam will be More.
Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean Brandon
as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower in
H8's reign except to be executed!

It starts next month and comments before, during and after will be most
welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's Henry VIII,
it won't follow Shakespeare's line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors

i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it, but somehow have missed seeing it.

roslyn
Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
Jeremy Northam will be More.
Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean Brandon
as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower in
H8's reign except to be executed!

It starts next month and comments before, during and after will be most
welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's Henry VIII,
it won't follow Shakespeare's line.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
>
> i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it, but
somehow have missed seeing it.
>
You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in North
America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between Meyers
and Winstone will be very interesting.

> roslyn
> Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> Jeremy Northam will be More.
> Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
Brandon
> as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower in
> H8's reign except to be executed!
>
> It starts next month and comments before, during and after will be
most
> welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's Henry
VIII,
> it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for an
American production of British history. Making Henry's two sisters
into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.

Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm still
waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and starts
singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> >
> > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
but
> somehow have missed seeing it.
> >
> You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in North
> America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
Meyers
> and Winstone will be very interesting.
>
> > roslyn
> > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> Brandon
> > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower
in
> > H8's reign except to be executed!
> >
> > It starts next month and comments before, during and after will
be
> most
> > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
Henry
> VIII,
> > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for an
> American production of British history. Making Henry's two sisters
> into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
> confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.
>
> Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm still
> waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and starts
> singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
>
He did say "I have been betrayed" a few times but not "Cor blimey
Cromwell, me old china, that Enn Blinn ain't half a right pain in the
Gregory".
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > >
> > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
> but
> > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > >
> > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in North
> > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
> Meyers
> > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> >
> > > roslyn
> > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> > Brandon
> > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the
Tower
> in
> > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > >
> > > It starts next month and comments before, during and after will
> be
> > most
> > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
> Henry
> > VIII,
> > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Then who does the "sister" marry?

Helen

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for an
American production of British history. Making Henry's two sisters
into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.

Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm still
waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and starts
singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> >
> > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
but
> somehow have missed seeing it.
> >
> You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in North
> America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
Meyers
> and Winstone will be very interesting.
>
> > roslyn
> > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> Brandon
> > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower
in
> > H8's reign except to be executed!
> >
> > It starts next month and comments before, during and after will
be
> most
> > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
Henry
> VIII,
> > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>






---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
> Then who does the "sister" marry?
>
> Helen



James XII of Scotland, of course.


> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as
usual for an
> American production of British history. Making Henry's two sisters
> into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
> confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.



Don't feel bad -- we Americans mangle our own history in docudramas, too.

Fortunately, they won't have to deal with Isabel Despencer and her two
husbands, Richard Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp.

Katy

why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of course

....talk about creative licence..

i did read somewhere that this program was a good replacement for the series rome..and that program was less than historically accurate too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.

here's an outline of each episode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes

Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
Then who does the "sister" marry?

Helen

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for an
American production of British history. Making Henry's two sisters
into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.

Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm still
waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and starts
singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> >
> > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
but
> somehow have missed seeing it.
> >
> You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in North
> America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
Meyers
> and Winstone will be very interesting.
>
> > roslyn
> > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> Brandon
> > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower
in
> > H8's reign except to be executed!
> >
> > It starts next month and comments before, during and after will
be
> most
> > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
Henry
> VIII,
> > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on the pay
cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the very first
scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's uncle is
murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His mother's
(Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the impression
Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?

Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a show.
I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome. Tudors was
just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
Howard


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of course
>
> ....talk about creative licence..
>
> i did read somewhere that this program was a good replacement for
the series rome..and that program was less than historically accurate
too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
>
> here's an outline of each episode.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
>
> Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
> Then who does the "sister" marry?
>
> Helen
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for an
> American production of British history. Making Henry's two sisters
> into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
> confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.
>
> Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm still
> waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and starts
> singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > >
> > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
> but
> > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > >
> > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in North
> > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
> Meyers
> > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> >
> > > roslyn
> > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> > Brandon
> > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the
Tower
> in
> > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > >
> > > It starts next month and comments before, during and after will
> be
> > most
> > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
> Henry
> > VIII,
> > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
storage. Get it now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I saw Rome without knowing much about the bad history (though I
later read up on the differences).
With a little more knowledge of the early Tudors I suspect that I
won't be able to enjoy the Tudors without thinking "taht's wrong" at
every step. If they wan't an enjoyable costume romp why not just
invent a fictional dynasty?
On of Henry's cousins, one of the younger de la Pole's and a Yorkist
claimant, was killed at Pavia (I think in a joust) and this may have
inspired the uncle story.
Unless of course it's supposed to be one of the Princes in the
Tower...


--- In , "Howard Heller"
<howard_heller@...> wrote:
>
> The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on the
pay
> cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
> I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the very
first
> scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
> importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's uncle
is
> murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His
mother's
> (Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the
impression
> Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
>
> Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a show.
> I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
> enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome. Tudors
was
> just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
> Howard
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of course
> >
> > ....talk about creative licence..
> >
> > i did read somewhere that this program was a good replacement
for
> the series rome..and that program was less than historically
accurate
> too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
> >
> > here's an outline of each episode.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
> >
> > Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> > Then who does the "sister" marry?
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for
an
> > American production of British history. Making Henry's two
sisters
> > into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get
too
> > confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.
> >
> > Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm
still
> > waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and
starts
> > singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > > >
> > > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
> > but
> > > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > > >
> > > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in
North
> > > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
> > Meyers
> > > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> > >
> > > > roslyn
> > > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST
mean
> > > Brandon
> > > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the
> Tower
> > in
> > > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > > >
> > > > It starts next month and comments before, during and after
will
> > be
> > > most
> > > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
> > Henry
> > > VIII,
> > > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
> storage. Get it now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Correction, Pavia was a full-blown battle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole

However, since his father was briefly married to Henry VIII's mom,
he could be said to be a sort of pseudo-uncle.



--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I saw Rome without knowing much about the bad history (though I
> later read up on the differences).
> With a little more knowledge of the early Tudors I suspect that I
> won't be able to enjoy the Tudors without thinking "taht's wrong"
at
> every step. If they wan't an enjoyable costume romp why not just
> invent a fictional dynasty?
> On of Henry's cousins, one of the younger de la Pole's and a
Yorkist
> claimant, was killed at Pavia (I think in a joust) and this may
have
> inspired the uncle story.
> Unless of course it's supposed to be one of the Princes in the
> Tower...
>
>
> --- In , "Howard Heller"
> <howard_heller@> wrote:
> >
> > The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on
the
> pay
> > cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
> > I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the very
> first
> > scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
> > importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's
uncle
> is
> > murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His
> mother's
> > (Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the
> impression
> > Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
> >
> > Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a
show.
> > I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
> > enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome.
Tudors
> was
> > just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
> > Howard
> >
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of
course
> > >
> > > ....talk about creative licence..
> > >
> > > i did read somewhere that this program was a good
replacement
> for
> > the series rome..and that program was less than historically
> accurate
> > too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
> > >
> > > here's an outline of each episode.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
> > >
> > > Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> > > Then who does the "sister" marry?
> > >
> > > Helen
> > >
> > > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual
for
> an
> > > American production of British history. Making Henry's two
> sisters
> > > into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get
> too
> > > confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is
typical.
> > >
> > > Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm
> still
> > > waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and
> starts
> > > singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
> > >
> > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > > > >
> > > > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for
it,
> > > but
> > > > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > > > >
> > > > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in
> North
> > > > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
> > > Meyers
> > > > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> > > >
> > > > > roslyn
> > > > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST
> mean
> > > > Brandon
> > > > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the
> > Tower
> > > in
> > > > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > > > >
> > > > > It starts next month and comments before, during and after
> will
> > > be
> > > > most
> > > > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike
ITV's
> > > Henry
> > > > VIII,
> > > > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
> > storage. Get it now.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Whoops, another correction. John Duke of Suffolk was married to
Henry's Grandam, Margaret Beaufort. Don't ask me what relation that
makes him. Proto-Grandfather?

"Cousin" never seems adequate, since most of the nobility at this
time were cousins (including husbands and wives).

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Correction, Pavia was a full-blown battle:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole
>
> However, since his father was briefly married to Henry VIII's mom,
> he could be said to be a sort of pseudo-uncle.
>
>
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > I saw Rome without knowing much about the bad history (though I
> > later read up on the differences).
> > With a little more knowledge of the early Tudors I suspect that
I
> > won't be able to enjoy the Tudors without thinking "taht's
wrong"
> at
> > every step. If they wan't an enjoyable costume romp why not just
> > invent a fictional dynasty?
> > On of Henry's cousins, one of the younger de la Pole's and a
> Yorkist
> > claimant, was killed at Pavia (I think in a joust) and this may
> have
> > inspired the uncle story.
> > Unless of course it's supposed to be one of the Princes in the
> > Tower...
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Howard Heller"
> > <howard_heller@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on
> the
> > pay
> > > cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
> > > I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the
very
> > first
> > > scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
> > > importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's
> uncle
> > is
> > > murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His
> > mother's
> > > (Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the
> > impression
> > > Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
> > >
> > > Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a
> show.
> > > I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
> > > enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome.
> Tudors
> > was
> > > just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
> > > Howard
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of
> course
> > > >
> > > > ....talk about creative licence..
> > > >
> > > > i did read somewhere that this program was a good
> replacement
> > for
> > > the series rome..and that program was less than historically
> > accurate
> > > too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
> > > >
> > > > here's an outline of each episode.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
> > > >
> > > > Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> > > > Then who does the "sister" marry?
> > > >
> > > > Helen
> > > >
> > > > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual
> for
> > an
> > > > American production of British history. Making Henry's two
> > sisters
> > > > into one composite character because U.S. audiences would
get
> > too
> > > > confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is
> typical.
> > > >
> > > > Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm
> > still
> > > > waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and
> > starts
> > > > singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen
Lark"
> > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for
> it,
> > > > but
> > > > > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in
> > North
> > > > > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast
between
> > > > Meyers
> > > > > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > > > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > > > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > > > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > > > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST
> > mean
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave
the
> > > Tower
> > > > in
> > > > > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It starts next month and comments before, during and
after
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > most
> > > > > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike
> ITV's
> > > > Henry
> > > > > VIII,
> > > > > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
> > > storage. Get it now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Howard Heller wrote:

>The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on the pay
>cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
>I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the very first
>scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
>importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's uncle is
>murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His mother's
>(Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the impression
>Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
>
>
**Yes, I wondered about that, too. I looked up any uncle by marriage
they might have been talking about but none seemed to match.

>Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a show.
>I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
>enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome. Tudors was
>just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
>Howard
>
>
**I found it rather entertaining...though I could have done with less
reminders that Henry VIII happen to have sex once in awhile. They played
that angle up way too much, as if him having sex was somehow, I don't
know, unusual.

Gilda

e4 had at least one proven illegit son, arthur waite.

there are a couple of others that haven't been proven:
one by jane shore called, peterkin, and another reputedly by eleanor talbot, edward of wigmore, born circa 1468, possibly died 1468. although there is a story his grandson worked for e1.

these would be considered uncles of the half blood, although illegit.

legit uncle's inlaw include..
ralph scrope d. 1515 m. cecily, however she divoriced him and m. thomas kyme d.1507.
thomas howard d. 1554 m. anne
william courtenay d. 1511 m. katherine

and then there are e4's illegit dau's. although little is known of them. if married they would provide illegit uncle's inlaw.
grace m...???
mary m. ???
margaret m. thomas lumley d. 1499. she could have mx2
and there is possibly one more unnamed dau.

and of course with the woodville clan, grandma, elizabeth's siblings would be gr. uncles or gr. uncles in law.

but, then we also know margaret tudor, sis of h8 did not m. the king of portugal..so, i think the creative licence kicks in right from the get go of this series.

roslyn

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Whoops, another correction. John Duke of Suffolk was married to
Henry's Grandam, Margaret Beaufort. Don't ask me what relation that
makes him. Proto-Grandfather?

"Cousin" never seems adequate, since most of the nobility at this
time were cousins (including husbands and wives).

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Correction, Pavia was a full-blown battle:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole
>
> However, since his father was briefly married to Henry VIII's mom,
> he could be said to be a sort of pseudo-uncle.
>
>
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > I saw Rome without knowing much about the bad history (though I
> > later read up on the differences).
> > With a little more knowledge of the early Tudors I suspect that
I
> > won't be able to enjoy the Tudors without thinking "taht's
wrong"
> at
> > every step. If they wan't an enjoyable costume romp why not just
> > invent a fictional dynasty?
> > On of Henry's cousins, one of the younger de la Pole's and a
> Yorkist
> > claimant, was killed at Pavia (I think in a joust) and this may
> have
> > inspired the uncle story.
> > Unless of course it's supposed to be one of the Princes in the
> > Tower...
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Howard Heller"
> > <howard_heller@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on
> the
> > pay
> > > cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
> > > I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the
very
> > first
> > > scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
> > > importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's
> uncle
> > is
> > > murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His
> > mother's
> > > (Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the
> > impression
> > > Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
> > >
> > > Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a
> show.
> > > I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
> > > enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome.
> Tudors
> > was
> > > just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
> > > Howard
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of
> course
> > > >
> > > > ....talk about creative licence..
> > > >
> > > > i did read somewhere that this program was a good
> replacement
> > for
> > > the series rome..and that program was less than historically
> > accurate
> > > too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
> > > >
> > > > here's an outline of each episode.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
> > > >
> > > > Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> > > > Then who does the "sister" marry?
> > > >
> > > > Helen
> > > >
> > > > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual
> for
> > an
> > > > American production of British history. Making Henry's two
> > sisters
> > > > into one composite character because U.S. audiences would
get
> > too
> > > > confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is
> typical.
> > > >
> > > > Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm
> > still
> > > > waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and
> > starts
> > > > singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen
Lark"
> > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for
> it,
> > > > but
> > > > > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in
> > North
> > > > > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast
between
> > > > Meyers
> > > > > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > > > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > > > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > > > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > > > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST
> > mean
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave
the
> > > Tower
> > > > in
> > > > > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It starts next month and comments before, during and
after
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > most
> > > > > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike
> ITV's
> > > > Henry
> > > > > VIII,
> > > > > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
> > > storage. Get it now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Perhaps they're like the Germans and call close family
friends "Aunt" & "Uncle"---I could never figure out why my Mum's side
of the family has so many ersatz relatives until I asked "Now how is
Onkle Hans Fisher related to us?" "Oh, he's not a relative, just a
good friend of the family." You can find an example of this in the
movie "M" when the little girl about to be Peter Lorre's next victim
calls him "Onkle" after he buys her some candy.
So maybe the so-called Uncle who gets offed in Italy was Tudor
toady that they were fond of.
My explanation is just as good as their depiction of history.

"Meek"

> The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on the
pay
> cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
> I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the very
first
> scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
> importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's uncle
is
> murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His
mother's
> (Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the
impression
> Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
>
> Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a show.
> I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
> enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome. Tudors
was
> just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
> Howard
>
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of course
> >
> > ....talk about creative licence..
> >
> > i did read somewhere that this program was a good replacement
for
> the series rome..and that program was less than historically
accurate
> too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
> >
> > here's an outline of each episode.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
> >
> > Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> > Then who does the "sister" marry?
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual for
an
> > American production of British history. Making Henry's two
sisters
> > into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get too
> > confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is typical.
> >
> > Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm still
> > waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and
starts
> > singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > > >
> > > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for it,
> > but
> > > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > > >
> > > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in
North
> > > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast between
> > Meyers
> > > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> > >
> > > > roslyn
> > > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> > > Brandon
> > > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the
> Tower
> > in
> > > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > > >
> > > > It starts next month and comments before, during and after
will
> > be
> > > most
> > > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
> > Henry
> > > VIII,
> > > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
> storage. Get it now.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Correction, Pavia was a full-blown battle:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_de_la_Pole
>
> However, since his father was briefly married to Henry VIII's mom,
> he could be said to be a sort of pseudo-uncle.
>
Lord Richard de la Pole (and that was his title from birth to about
1504 when his brother was attainted) was the son of John de la Pole e
who was briefly married to Margaret Beaufort, grandmother of Henry
VIII. However, I believe that this was annulled. Despite the ceremony
and a year or two of cohabitation in the belief of marriage, it was
ruled never to have really happened.

His mother, Elizabeth of Suffolk, was Edward IV's sister and thus
Henry VIII's great-aunt on a permanent basis. Correctly, Lord Richard
was Henry's first cousin once removed. As you are probably aware,
Lord Richard and his putative descendants are my latest research
subjects.
>
> --- In , "theblackprussian"
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > I saw Rome without knowing much about the bad history (though I
> > later read up on the differences).
> > With a little more knowledge of the early Tudors I suspect that I
> > won't be able to enjoy the Tudors without thinking "taht's wrong"
> at
> > every step. If they wan't an enjoyable costume romp why not just
> > invent a fictional dynasty?
> > On of Henry's cousins, one of the younger de la Pole's and a
> Yorkist
> > claimant, was killed at Pavia (I think in a joust) and this may
> have
> > inspired the uncle story.
> > Unless of course it's supposed to be one of the Princes in the
> > Tower...
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Howard Heller"
> > <howard_heller@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The show Tudors aired here in the States earlier this year on
> the
> > pay
> > > cable channel Showtime. As a show it was only OK.
> > > I won't comment on how historically accurate. But, in the very
> > first
> > > scene, (this won't spoil the show...not revealing anything of
> > > importance),in the first 2 minutes of the show, Henry 8th's
> uncle
> > is
> > > murdered in Itally. I wondered who his uncle could be. His
> > mother's
> > > (Elizabeth of York)'s brothers were dead. I was under the
> > impression
> > > Henry 7th was an only child. So, did Henry 8th have an uncle?
> > >
> > > Comparitively, Rome was by far much, much, much better of a
> show.
> > > I'm not talking historically accurate, just pure story and
> > > enjoyment. I couldn't wait for the next episode of Rome.
> Tudors
> > was
> > > just so-so. At least, that is my opinion.
> > > Howard
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > why, the sister margaret marries the king of portugal, of
> course
> > > >
> > > > ....talk about creative licence..
> > > >
> > > > i did read somewhere that this program was a good
> replacement
> > for
> > > the series rome..and that program was less than historically
> > accurate
> > > too. good, but certainly not for "true" history buffs.
> > > >
> > > > here's an outline of each episode.
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Tudors_episodes
> > > >
> > > > Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@> wrote:
> > > > Then who does the "sister" marry?
> > > >
> > > > Helen
> > > >
> > > > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > > > Judging by the Wiki page it looks about as accurate as usual
> for
> > an
> > > > American production of British history. Making Henry's two
> > sisters
> > > > into one composite character because U.S. audiences would get
> > too
> > > > confused if he had a sister AND a daughter named Mary is
> typical.
> > > >
> > > > Winstone's Henry is one of TVs great comedy characters. I'm
> > still
> > > > waiting for the bit when he breaks into a dance routine and
> > starts
> > > > singing "Oim 'enery de aiff, Oi am!"
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > > > <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , fayre rose
> > > > > <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i have not seen the program. i know i caught a promo for
> it,
> > > > but
> > > > > somehow have missed seeing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You haven't missed it - it starts in October, hopefully in
> > North
> > > > > America and Australasia some time soon. The contrast
between
> > > > Meyers
> > > > > and Winstone will be very interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > > > roslyn
> > > > > > Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > > > > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > > > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > > > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > > > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > > > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST
> > mean
> > > > > Brandon
> > > > > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave
the
> > > Tower
> > > > in
> > > > > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It starts next month and comments before, during and
after
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > most
> > > > > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike
> ITV's
> > > > Henry
> > > > > VIII,
> > > > > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
> > > storage. Get it now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Whoops, another correction. John Duke of Suffolk was married to
> Henry's Grandam, Margaret Beaufort. Don't ask me what relation that
> makes him. Proto-Grandfather?

Technically Margaret's marriage to John de la Pole doesn't count
because they were both children, and when Margaret reachd the age of
consent she was persuaded to renounce it so she could marry Edmund
Tudor.

I've had Jonathan Rhys Meyers marked down for Tudor the thin, not
Harry the fat, for some time now. And apart from a 3 hour nonsense
about Catherine of Aragon leading up to a eulogy over the baby
Elizabeth, I don't recall the Bard spending much time writing about
Henry 7 or 8!
Paul


On 15 Sep 2007, at 21:45, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> Jeremy Northam will be More.
> Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean Brandon
> as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower in
> H8's reign except to be executed!
>
> It starts next month and comments before, during and after will be
> most
> welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's Henry
> VIII,
> it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> I've had Jonathan Rhys Meyers marked down for Tudor the thin, not
> Harry the fat, for some time now. And apart from a 3 hour nonsense
> about Catherine of Aragon leading up to a eulogy over the baby
> Elizabeth, I don't recall the Bard spending much time writing
about
> Henry 7 or 8!
> Paul
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2007, at 21:45, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
Brandon
> > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the Tower
in
> > H8's reign except to be executed!
> >
> > It starts next month and comments before, during and after will
be
> > most
> > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
Henry
> > VIII,
> > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
In tonight's episode, Kate O'Toole played the Countess of Salisbury.
PS Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond has just died in the series - it
is obviously pre-1930 because Wolsey is still alive - but he didn't
pass away until 1537 when he was about 18.

Last year's anachronisms - wrought iron fences, electric lighting,
Fitzroy dying whilst Wolsey is alive, Wolsey taking his own life -
are about to be furthered by Peter O'Toole as Paul III commenting on
the Anne Boleyn marriage whilst he didn't become Pope until about a
year later.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > I've had Jonathan Rhys Meyers marked down for Tudor the thin,
not
> > Harry the fat, for some time now. And apart from a 3 hour
nonsense
> > about Catherine of Aragon leading up to a eulogy over the baby
> > Elizabeth, I don't recall the Bard spending much time writing
> about
> > Henry 7 or 8!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 15 Sep 2007, at 21:45, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Jonathan Rhys Meyers will be Henry VIII.
> > > Gabrielle Anwar will be Margaret Tudor (Stewart).
> > > Sam Neill will be Wolsey.
> > > Jeremy Northam will be More.
> > > Henry Cavill will be the Duke of Suffolk - and this MUST mean
> Brandon
> > > as Edmund de la Pole was only an Earl and didn't leave the
Tower
> in
> > > H8's reign except to be executed!
> > >
> > > It starts next month and comments before, during and after
will
> be
> > > most
> > > welcome, as will comparisons. It sounds as if, unlike ITV's
> Henry
> > > VIII,
> > > it won't follow Shakespeare's line.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
> In tonight's episode, Kate O'Toole played the Countess of
Salisbury.
> PS Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond has just died in the series -
it
> is obviously pre-1930 because Wolsey is still alive - but he
didn't
> pass away until 1537 when he was about 18.
>

Though I've never actually seen the Chewdoors, I can't believe its any
worse than Bonekickers, surely the worst drama the Beeb has ever
produced.

One is tempted to imagine a Bonekickers episode dealing with our period:
Perhaps a freak storm exposes the dry bed of the river Soar, and the
Boneheads find Richard's skeleton.
The sleuthing archeologists discover (shock!) that he wasn't a
hunchback after all, but decide to incinerate the remains to protect
the memory of the sainted Henry (well they've burned everything else
they found so far including the True Cross and Boudica).
They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies of Alison
Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.

I could go on, but I don't think I could come up with a plot any dafter
than the show has already been.


--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Last year's anachronisms - wrought iron fences, electric lighting,
> Fitzroy dying whilst Wolsey is alive, Wolsey taking his own life -
> are about to be furthered by Peter O'Toole as Paul III commenting on
> the Anne Boleyn marriage whilst he didn't become Pope until about a
> year later.

Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
Paul

On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:

> Though I've never actually seen the Chewdoors, I can't believe its any
> worse than Bonekickers, surely the worst drama the Beeb has ever
> produced.
>
> One is tempted to imagine a Bonekickers episode dealing with our
> period:
> Perhaps a freak storm exposes the dry bed of the river Soar, and the
> Boneheads find Richard's skeleton.
> The sleuthing archeologists discover (shock!) that he wasn't a
> hunchback after all, but decide to incinerate the remains to protect
> the memory of the sainted Henry (well they've burned everything else
> they found so far including the True Cross and Boudica).
> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies of Alison
> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
>
> I could go on, but I don't think I could come up with a plot any
> dafter
> than the show has already been.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
> Paul
>
> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
>
>
> > They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
> > fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies of Alison
> > Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> >
> >Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh over, thank you so much
Eileen

It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >
> > > They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
> > > fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
of Alison
> > > Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> > >
> > >Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh
over, thank you so much
> Eileen
>

Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the Earl of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears in the second series as Thomas Cranmer.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Lark
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >
> > > They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
> > > fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
of Alison
> > > Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> > >
> > >Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh
over, thank you so much
> Eileen
>

You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the Queen in
that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!! (Guess who
isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it though.
Paul


On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the Earl
> of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears in
> the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Lark
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are
> about to return to BBC2
>
>
> It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
>>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
> of Alison
>>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh
> over, thank you so much
>> Eileen
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I didn't see any NEW anachronisms on Friday - the poisoner boiled
alive was a true story, if I recall - but I saw "Miss Marple:
Towards Zero" last night. The book was written in 1944, everyone
dressed and behaved like they would in the thirties/ late forties
and yet there was an electronic scoreboard in the tennis match.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the Queen
in
> that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!! (Guess
who
> isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it
though.
> Paul
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the
Earl
> > of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears
in
> > the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephen Lark
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
> > Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders
are
> > about to return to BBC2
> >
> >
> > It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
> >>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
> > of Alison
> >>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh
> > over, thank you so much
> >> Eileen
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Of course only one thing was missing from the Christie Miss Marple
book, Miss Marple. She wasn't in it!!
Paul


On 4 Aug 2008, at 08:32, Stephen Lark wrote:

> I didn't see any NEW anachronisms on Friday - the poisoner boiled
> alive was a true story, if I recall - but I saw "Miss Marple:
> Towards Zero" last night. The book was written in 1944, everyone
> dressed and behaved like they would in the thirties/ late forties
> and yet there was an electronic scoreboard in the tennis match.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the Queen
> in
>> that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!! (Guess
> who
>> isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it
> though.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>>> Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the
> Earl
>>> of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears
> in
>>> the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Stephen Lark
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders
> are
>>> about to return to BBC2
>>>
>>>
>>> It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
>>>
>>> --- In , "eileen"
>>> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
>>>>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
>>> of Alison
>>>>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh
>>> over, thank you so much
>>>> Eileen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It was
very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which is
dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit this for
years, next stop Middleham.

On 8/4/08, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't see any NEW anachronisms on Friday - the poisoner boiled
> alive was a true story, if I recall - but I saw "Miss Marple:
> Towards Zero" last night. The book was written in 1944, everyone
> dressed and behaved like they would in the thirties/ late forties
> and yet there was an electronic scoreboard in the tennis match.
>
> --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the Queen
> in
> > that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!! (Guess
> who
> > isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it
> though.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the
> Earl
> > > of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears
> in
> > > the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Stephen Lark
> > > To: <%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders
> are
> > > about to return to BBC2
> > >
> > >
> > > It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
> > >
> > > --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "eileen"
> > > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed to!
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious Ricardian
> > >>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
> > > of Alison
> > >>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to laugh
> > > over, thank you so much
> > >> Eileen
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "C Nelson"
<c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It was
> very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which is
> dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
this for
> years, next stop Middleham.


I visited Middleham in mid-May 2007. We arrived less than half an
hour before closing time and had the place to ourselves aside from the
white cat who haunts...uh...patrols the ruins.

It is a very peaceful place, not sad as I had expected. One of our
group said that it puts its arms around you and draws you in. The
proportions of the rooms and the castle itself are very graceful.
Despite the thick stone walls it does not have the ponderous feeling
such as Bolton, a few miles away, has. Middleham is also not on some
forbidding, commanding height of land like Bolton, but instead is
nestled into a ridge overlooking meadows which fall away into the
valley.

One can feel that this was a happy place, and how Richard and Anne
must have missed it after the death of their son turned it into "the
castle of my care."

Katy

Katy wrote:
> I visited Middleham in mid-May 2007. <snip>

> It is a very peaceful place, not sad as I had expected. <snip>
Middleham is also not on some forbidding, commanding height of land
like Bolton, but instead is nestled into a ridge overlooking meadows
which fall away into the valley.

> One can feel that this was a happy place, and how Richard and Anne
must have missed it after the death of their son turned it into "the
castle of my care."

Carol responds:
It's true that Richard and Anne only visited Middleham once after
their son died there and the happiness they had associated with it
would have been lost to them, but wasn't it Nottingham that he called
"the castle of care" because that's where he and Anne were when they
heard the news of their son's death?

The name itself is an allusion to "The Vision of Piers Plowman":

"'It is,' she quoth, 'the Castle of Care, who comes therein May curse
the day his body or soul to life did win . . . .'"

"She" is "Holy Church," and Richard as a true son of Holy Church may
have felt that his son's death was God's retribution for his taking
the crown and declaring his brother's children illegitimate. Then,
again, it may mean no more than that Richard was thoroughly familiar
with the religious literature of his time. I don't want to read in too
much.

Carol, thinking how different life would have been for Richard if his
son and his wife had lived

--- In , "Carol"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Katy wrote:
> > I visited Middleham in mid-May 2007. <snip>
>
> > It is a very peaceful place, not sad as I had expected. <snip>
> Middleham is also not on some forbidding, commanding height of land
> like Bolton, but instead is nestled into a ridge overlooking meadows
> which fall away into the valley.
>
> > One can feel that this was a happy place, and how Richard and Anne
> must have missed it after the death of their son turned it into "the
> castle of my care."
>
> Carol responds:
> It's true that Richard and Anne only visited Middleham once after
> their son died there and the happiness they had associated with it
> would have been lost to them, but wasn't it Nottingham that he called
> "the castle of care" because that's where he and Anne were when they
> heard the news of their son's death?


Oops...maybe (probably) you're right. I didn't check before writing
that, which is a bad idea in this forum because someone will always
catch an error.

Hopefully, the important part of my post was my impression of the
ruins of Middleham.

Katy

Joss Stone is to play Anne of Cleves later in the series.

PS Why is it called "The TudorS" when it is really about only one f
them?

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Of course only one thing was missing from the Christie Miss
Marple
> book, Miss Marple. She wasn't in it!!
> Paul
>
>
> On 4 Aug 2008, at 08:32, Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > I didn't see any NEW anachronisms on Friday - the poisoner boiled
> > alive was a true story, if I recall - but I saw "Miss Marple:
> > Towards Zero" last night. The book was written in 1944, everyone
> > dressed and behaved like they would in the thirties/ late forties
> > and yet there was an electronic scoreboard in the tennis match.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>
> >> You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the
Queen
> > in
> >> that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!! (Guess
> > who
> >> isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it
> > though.
> >> Paul
> >>
> >>
> >> On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >>
> >>> Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the
> > Earl
> >>> of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears
> > in
> >>> the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: Stephen Lark
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders
> > are
> >>> about to return to BBC2
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
> >>>
> >>> --- In , "eileen"
> >>> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In , Paul Trevor
Bale
> >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed
to!
> >>>>> Paul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious
Ricardian
> >>>>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
> >>> of Alison
> >>>>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to
laugh
> >>> over, thank you so much
> >>>> Eileen
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

Anachronism? Violins did not exist in the 15th century yet Anne was
taught by Smeaton how to hold and play one...
Paul


On 6 Aug 2008, at 11:47, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Joss Stone is to play Anne of Cleves later in the series.
>
> PS Why is it called "The TudorS" when it is really about only one f
> them?
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Of course only one thing was missing from the Christie Miss
> Marple
>> book, Miss Marple. She wasn't in it!!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 4 Aug 2008, at 08:32, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't see any NEW anachronisms on Friday - the poisoner boiled
>>> alive was a true story, if I recall - but I saw "Miss Marple:
>>> Towards Zero" last night. The book was written in 1944, everyone
>>> dressed and behaved like they would in the thirties/ late forties
>>> and yet there was an electronic scoreboard in the tennis match.
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the
> Queen
>>> in
>>>> that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!! (Guess
>>> who
>>>> isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it
>>> though.
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as the
>>> Earl
>>>>> of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff) appears
>>> in
>>>>> the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Stephen Lark
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders
>>> are
>>>>> about to return to BBC2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , "eileen"
>>>>> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor
> Bale
>>>>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed
> to!
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious
> Ricardian
>>>>>>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing copies
>>>>> of Alison
>>>>>>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to
> laugh
>>>>> over, thank you so much
>>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Is there not some considerable doubt as to whether this is really the
tomb of Richard & Anne's son ?

Richard G

--- In , "C Nelson"
<c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It
> was very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which
> is dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
> this for years, next stop Middleham.

--- In , "C Nelson"
<c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It was
> very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which is
> dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
this for
> years, next stop Middleham.


Did you get to visit the Sherriff Hutton the castle? When I was in
the vicinity last year, there wasn't time for us to arrange access to
the ruins. (They're on private property.) I know the tomb is in the
parish church.

Katy

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Is there not some considerable doubt as to whether this is really the
> tomb of Richard & Anne's son ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "C Nelson"
> <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> >
> > I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It
> > was very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which
> > is dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
> > this for years, next stop Middleham.


So I have read. Evidently the hair style is anachronistic and seems
to belong to earlier era.


Katy

--- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Is there not some considerable doubt as to whether this is really the
> tomb of Richard & Anne's son ?
>
> Richard G

Thats right - The tomb has been somewhat mucked about with. "Royal Tombs of Medieval
England" by Mark Duffy, covers this tomb in some detail. It was only placed in its present
position in 1949 and its possible the 3 alabaster panels do not belong to the effigy! Mr
Duffy also points out that it is unclear why Edward would have been buried at Sheriff
Hutton when Richard had founded a collegiate church at Middleham.

Now here's a mystery - Edward died around 9th April, when his parents were at
Nottingham Castle. According to the Itinerary of Richard, he did not leave Nottingham
until Tuesday 27th April, reaching Middleham, via Doncaster, Pontefract and York, on
Thursday 6th May. He left Middleham on Saturday 8th May reaching Sheriff Hutton 24th
May, staying one day. If Edward was buried at Middleham, why did Richard take so long to
reach here? Did Richard attend his son's funeral? Surely he must have but why the delay?
Of course Edward could have been embalmed so there would be no immediate rush but
even so why the delay? Maybe Anne was ill with the shock of her son's sudden death and
was unable to travel. Anyone have any ideas on this?
Eileen
>
> --- In , "C Nelson"
> <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> >
> > I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It
> > was very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which
> > is dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
> > this for years, next stop Middleham.
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

> Now here's a mystery - Edward died around 9th April, when his
parents were at
> Nottingham Castle. According to the Itinerary of Richard, he did
not leave Nottingham
> until Tuesday 27th April, reaching Middleham, via Doncaster,
Pontefract and York, on
> Thursday 6th May. He left Middleham on Saturday 8th May reaching
Sheriff Hutton 24th
> May, staying one day.


He must have been somewhere between leaving Middleham on 8 May and
arriving at Sheriff Hutton on 24 May -- the two places are not that
far apart. It couldn't take him sixteen days to get from one to the
other unless he went around the Hebrides.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
>
> > Now here's a mystery - Edward died around 9th April, when his
> parents were at
> > Nottingham Castle. According to the Itinerary of Richard, he did
> not leave Nottingham
> > until Tuesday 27th April, reaching Middleham, via Doncaster,
> Pontefract and York, on
> > Thursday 6th May. He left Middleham on Saturday 8th May reaching
> Sheriff Hutton 24th
> > May, staying one day.
>
>
> He must have been somewhere between leaving Middleham on 8 May and
> arriving at Sheriff Hutton on 24 May -- the two places are not that
> far apart. It couldn't take him sixteen days to get from one to the
> other unless he went around the Hebrides.
>
> Katy

Obviously - I didnt think it be of any interest - so- leaving Middleham Saturday 8th May,
Sunday 9thMay Barnard Castle
Monday 10th May Barnard Castle
Tuesday ?
Wednesday 12th ?
Thursday 13th Newcastle
Friday 14th Newcastle
" " Durham
Saturday 15th Durham
Sunday 16th "
Monday 17th "
Tuesday 18th ?
Wednesday 19th ?
Thursday 20th Rievaulx
Friday 21st ?
Saturday 22nd Scarborough Castle
Sunday 23rd ?
Monday 24th SHERIFF HUTTON
Tuesday 25th York .........................

I suppose there is the possibilty After leaving York on the 1 May he travelled to Middleham
and then accompanied Edward's body to Sheriff Hutton for burial, however, as you can see
he only stayed at Sheriff Hutton one day.
Eileen


>

I never heard that and always read that he was buried in the parish church
at Sheriff Hutton. Please tell me more of these doubts?

On 8/6/08, rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Is there not some considerable doubt as to whether this is really the
> tomb of Richard & Anne's son ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In <%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "C Nelson"
> <c.nelson1@...> wrote:
> >
> > I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It
> > was very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which
> > is dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
> > this for years, next stop Middleham.
>
>
>

HOPE THIS ONE TAKES. MY LAST ATTEMPTS AT MESSAGES HAVE DISAPPEARED
INTO THE BLUE YONDER.
PLEASE SCROLL TO BOTTOM

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "eileen"
> > <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > > Now here's a mystery - Edward died around 9th April, when his
> > parents were at
> > > Nottingham Castle. According to the Itinerary of Richard, he
did
> > not leave Nottingham
> > > until Tuesday 27th April, reaching Middleham, via Doncaster,
> > Pontefract and York, on
> > > Thursday 6th May. He left Middleham on Saturday 8th May
reaching
> > Sheriff Hutton 24th
> > > May, staying one day.
> >
> >
> > He must have been somewhere between leaving Middleham on 8 May and
> > arriving at Sheriff Hutton on 24 May -- the two places are not
that
> > far apart. It couldn't take him sixteen days to get from one to
the
> > other unless he went around the Hebrides.
> >
> > Katy
>
> Obviously - I didnt think it be of any interest - so- leaving
Middleham Saturday 8th May,
> Sunday 9thMay Barnard Castle
> Monday 10th May Barnard Castle
> Tuesday ?
> Wednesday 12th ?
> Thursday 13th Newcastle
> Friday 14th Newcastle
> " " Durham
> Saturday 15th Durham
> Sunday 16th "
> Monday 17th "
> Tuesday 18th ?
> Wednesday 19th ?
> Thursday 20th Rievaulx
> Friday 21st ?
> Saturday 22nd Scarborough Castle
> Sunday 23rd ?
> Monday 24th SHERIFF HUTTON
> Tuesday 25th York .........................
>
> I suppose there is the possibilty After leaving York on the 1 May
he travelled to Middleham
> and then accompanied Edward's body to Sheriff Hutton for burial,
however, as you can see
> he only stayed at Sheriff Hutton one day.
> Eileen

Right, here I am (hopefully).
The business of when Prince Edward died and so on has puzzled me for
a few years. We don't in fact know he died on 9th April. Crowland (I
think) started it off by remarking ominously that Prince Edward died
at about the same time of year as Edward IV, as if there were some
divine retribution at work. No contemporary source gives any firm
date. Crowland also says Richard received the newsc at Nottingham,
and he certainly was at Nottingham in April 1484.
There are several more odd things I have noticed, quite apart from
Richard's delayed start for the north:-
1) A commission of array for the northern counties dated 1at May was
headed by Edward Prince of Wales and Lincoln
2) Von Poppelau reached Richard at York, and travelled with him to
Middleham and Barnard Castle, but he makes no mention of the Prince's
death or the King being in mourning, never mind attending the funeral.
3) Edward was Lieutenant of Ireland. His replacement was Lincoln, but
Lincoln's appointment did not come for another four months - ie 21st
August 1484.
Richard did stop at Nottingham again for a few days in late July, but
went straight on down to Westminster afterwards. Perhaps somebody
needs to trawl the contemporary documents for the date of the
earliest reference to Prince Edward as deceased.
As regards when Richard reached Middleham. I think Rhoda Edward's
itinerary cites a letter written at Nappa on 4th May. This is most
likely Nappa Hall in Wensleydale, the home of the Metcalfes. It is 13
miles BEYOND Middleham and almost 60 miles from York, so I doubt he
could have been in York on the 3rd and at Nappa on the 4th. The date
of this document is surely wrong. He could have visited Nappa as a
day trip out from Middleham, to get away from the pressures of his
itinerant court, or he could have stopped on his way up to Barnard
Castle, though that would have meant going via the steep Buttertubs
Pass.
The other thing that looks odd to me is Scarborough on 22nd May - it
is such a weird (and very long) detour between Rievaulx and Sheriff
Hutton.

Anyway, all very funny, but if Richard attended the funeral it must
have been somewhere he stayed for 3 days or more.

Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Anachronism? Violins did not exist in the 15th century yet Anne was
> taught by Smeaton how to hold and play one...
> Paul

My God, that's two anachronisms! Anne Boleyn didn't exist in the 15th
century either.

--- In , "C Nelson" <c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> I never heard that and always read that he was buried in the parish church
> at Sheriff Hutton. Please tell me more of these doubts?
Carol

Well to reiterate, if you can get hold of a copy of the Itinerary of Richard you will see that
after leaving Nottingham where he had heard of his son's death, he was only at Sheriff
Hutton on Monday 24 May - just one day. Does it seem likely that he would have been
and gone in one day if his son's funeral had been held there? In Marie's posting, she says
something about Richard would probably/possibly have stayed about three days at the
place where the funeral was held - which makes sense to me. The itinerary shows that he
spent three days at York (lst to the 3rd May) and 3 days at Middleham (6th to 8th May).
Maybe Edward was buried at York - would Richard have lingered at York for three days
with a funeral to go to in Middleham??? Strange.

However IF the figure on the effigy does represent Edward, it does not mean he was
buried there and it is his tomb - it could be his cenotaph- there are plenty of these in
English churches that represent people that are buried elsewhere.

Also the costume looks, to me, as if it from a slightly earlier period.
Eileen

>
> On 8/6/08, rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is there not some considerable doubt as to whether this is really the
> > tomb of Richard & Anne's son ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
<%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "C Nelson"
> > <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's tomb. It
> > > was very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church (which
> > > is dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to visit
> > > this for years, next stop Middleham.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> However IF the figure on the effigy does represent Edward, it does
not mean he was
> buried there and it is his tomb - it could be his cenotaph- there
are plenty of these in
> English churches that represent people that are buried elsewhere.
>
> Also the costume looks, to me, as if it from a slightly earlier period.
>


It is indeed a cenotaph. There is no body inside.

Marie, isn't there speculation that the effigy represents one of the
Neville sons who died in childhood earlier in the century?

Katy

Eileen quoted "C Nelson":
> >
> > I never heard that and always read that he was buried in the
parish church at Sheriff Hutton. Please tell me more of these doubts?

> Carol


Carol responds:
I'm not sure how my name got into this discussion. If I'm correct,
this was Coral's post. (Coral, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Carol, intrigued by the topic of Richard's itinerary and the geography
involved but unable to contribute to this particular discussion

I don't have the sources to hand, but I believe the tomb was messed
about with in the Civil War and re-assembled relatively recently. Its
attribution to Edward Prince of Wales came about when the local
clergy were wondering whose tomb it was and settled upon Edward as a
possible candidate - obviously having the tomb of a Prince of Wales
in one's church would be a useful way to encourage visitors and
fundraising (as indeed your visit proves !). The suggestion is that
it was the tomb of another member of the Neville family. I will try
and look out the sources while home with my library in the next
couple of weeks.

Richard G

--- In , "C Nelson"
<c.nelson1@...> wrote:
>
> I never heard that and always read that he was buried in the parish
church
> at Sheriff Hutton. Please tell me more of these doubts?
>
> On 8/6/08, rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is there not some considerable doubt as to whether this is
really the
> > tomb of Richard & Anne's son ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
<%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "C Nelson"
> > <c.nelson1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I visited Sherriff Hutton on Sunday to see Richard's son's
tomb. It
> > > was very moving although I have to say that Fotheringay Church
(which
> > > is dedicated to the Yorkists is magnificent. I have wanted to
visit
> > > this for years, next stop Middleham.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Carol" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen quoted "C Nelson":
> > >
> > > I never heard that and always read that he was buried in the
> parish church at Sheriff Hutton. Please tell me more of these doubts?
>
> > Carol
>
>
> Carol responds:
> I'm not sure how my name got into this discussion. If I'm correct,
> this was Coral's post. (Coral, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Oh yeah, sorry Carol, I got my Carol's and Coral's mixed Up ;-|
Eileen
>
> Carol, intrigued by the topic of Richard's itinerary and the geography
> involved but unable to contribute to this particular discussion
>

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> -
>
> Marie, isn't there speculation that the effigy represents one of the
> Neville sons who died in childhood earlier in the century?
>
> Katy
>
It has been suggested that it may represent Ralph Neville son of Richard Neville, Duke of
Salisbury (died 1461 - the costume would be more applicable to this date).

Of course it's all a mystery - it seems everything connected to Richard and his reign is a
MYSTERY, Doh!

Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > -
> >
> > Marie, isn't there speculation that the effigy represents one of
the
> > Neville sons who died in childhood earlier in the century?
> >
> > Katy
> >
> It has been suggested that it may represent Ralph Neville son of
Richard Neville, Duke of
> Salisbury (died 1461 - the costume would be more applicable to this
date).
>
> Of course it's all a mystery - it seems everything connected to
Richard and his reign is a
> MYSTERY, Doh!
>
> Eileen

There is a photograph of the tomb on the website of the Society's
Worcestershire Branch, which you can get to through the links on the
main society website. From it you can clearly show the 2/4-lengh
houppelande and the exposed ears, which are due to the fact that the
figure sports a Henry V haircut.
This is what the GENUKI write-up on Sheriff Hutton has to say about
it:-
"On the other tomb, is the alabaster figure of a young person,
evidently of high rank, his head resting on cushions and encircled by
a coronet*, and clad in the loose furred robes of the 15th century.
The monument is much defaced, and, unfortunately, bears no
inscription; but one of the shields, which angels are holding on the
sides of the tomb, is charged with the arms of Neville. The central
ornament on the face of the monument is a very remarkable piece of
sculpture. It represents a venerable figure, crowned and seated on a
throne, which was probably intended to symbolize God the Father,
having immediately before him the Cross, on which hangs His crucified
Son; and on the right is a knight, in armour, kneeling. From his lips
and uplifted hands proceeds a scroll, which enters the ear of the
central figure, intending, evidently, to typify the supplications he
is pouring into the ear of the Father.

*A note from the Richard III Foundation:
The effigy head covering is a cap of maintenance rather than a
coronet. There are no points on it to symbolize the coronet used in
the 15th century. The robing is out of date to the late fifteenth
century and is more in style with the early 15 century. During Edward
IV's reign, the design was of shorter rather than the long houppelane
style."

There was a series of articles about it in the Ricardian many years
ago, putting the case for and against. One of the againsts suggested
a son of Salisbury's who died, I think, in the 1430s, but I'm afraid
I don't have my Ricardians where I am at present. I'm not convinced
there was a brother of Warwick's called Ralph who died in 1461, and
if there had been he would have been an adult, whereas the figure on
the tomb is that of a growing boy.
Peter Hammond in his booklet on Edward of Middleham argues for,
basically on the grounds that:-
1) Richard had set up the Council of the North at Sheriff Hutton so
it made sense.
Unfortunately, the Council of the North was not set up until late
July of 1484, and then - as we now know - it was based at Sandal. It
didn't move to Sheriff Hutton till the spring of 1485.
2) There are other examples of tombs of that sort of date in the
north of England having such old-fashioned figures.
Actually, the example Peter cites is of a tomb of 1477, which is not
quite as late as this one, and it is of a fairly obscure couple. One
reason why tomb effigies could be old-fashioned looking relative to
the date of death is that people often had their tombs made for them
when they were alive, and the effigy might have been 20 or 30 years
old before it got to be used. Another is that the dress of ordinary
people in remote areas lagged behind the court fashions. I really
can't buy the idea that a tomb made in 1484 for the King's son would
have been so frumpishly outdated looking.
You can't guess which side I'm on, can you?

About the length of time Richard must have stayed in a place to
attend a funeral there: medieval funeral services took place over two
days, the body only being buried at the end of the second day. So
Richard couldn't possibly have attended the funeral at a one-day stop.

We should, however, consider the possibility that he and Anne did not
attend the funeral. After all, Henry VII and Elizabeth of York didn't
go to Prince Arthur's funeral.

I Richard would have to have sent the messenger who brought the news
of his son's death back to Middleham with his instructions regarding
the burial, and depending on where that was to be, that might have
caused him to delay leaving Nottingham.
My personal preference (today, at any rate) is that Edward died
rather later in the month than is usually supposed, that Richard got
the news and opted for burial at York, and that he timed his
departure from Nottingham to meet the funeral cortege from Middleham
when it arrived in York. We know he was in Pontefract on 29th April,
and in York on 1st May, and that Von Poppelau (who mentions no
funeral) met him in York some time after his arrival - maybe May Day -
I can't recall whether he makes it clear. Richard may have reached
York on 30th April, or even some time during 29th, and the funeral
may have taken place then, hence no documents being issued during
those days.
Later, Richard commissioned a huge chantry to be built on to York
Minster, which it is believed he intended as a family mausoleum. The
foundations were already in place at the time of Bosworth, but of
course no further work ever took place on it.

Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Later, Richard commissioned a huge chantry to be built on to York
> Minster, which it is believed he intended as a family mausoleum. The
> foundations were already in place at the time of Bosworth, but of
> course no further work ever took place on it.

>
> Marie

I always thought that if Richard had survived he would have had made sure that Anne and
Edward had the kind of tombs/monuments they deserved - not to be though, so sad
Eileen
>

oops!
16th of course! :-)
Paul


On 7 Aug 2008, at 21:20, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Anachronism? Violins did not exist in the 15th century yet Anne was
>> taught by Smeaton how to hold and play one...
>> Paul
>
> My God, that's two anachronisms! Anne Boleyn didn't exist in the 15th
> century either.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Marie wrote:
> There is a photograph of the tomb on the website of the Society's
Worcestershire Branch, which you can get to through the links on the
main society website. From it you can clearly show the 2/4-lengh
houppelande and the exposed ears, which are due to the fact that the
figure sports a Henry V haircut.
<snip>
> *A note from the Richard III Foundation:
> The effigy head covering is a cap of maintenance rather than a
coronet. There are no points on it to symbolize the coronet used in
the 15th century. The robing is out of date to the late fifteenth
century and is more in style with the early 15 century. During Edward
IV's reign, the design was of shorter rather than the long houppelane
style."
<snipping interesting, well-informed discussion>

Carol responds:
Not knowing what a houppelande was (the R III Foundation's spelling,
"houppelane," is a typo), I looked it up. I suspect that Marie already
knows it refers to a loose robe worn by both men and women in the
fifteenth century. For those who, like me, are unfamiliar with the
term, there's an excellent illustration under "1400-1500 Fashion" at
Wikipedia (yeah, I know. Wikipedia! but I liked the picture):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1400-1500_in_fashion

It looks to me like a style worn in Chaucer's era. (The article links
to another on the houppelande itself and states that the style began
in the 1380s and lasted well into the next ecntury.)

Carol, adding irrelevantly that, as you probably know, Chaucer was an
ancestor of Richard's heir, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln

--- In , "Carol"
<justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > There is a photograph of the tomb on the website of the
Society's
> Worcestershire Branch, which you can get to through the links on
the
> main society website. From it you can clearly show the 2/4-lengh
> houppelande and the exposed ears, which are due to the fact that
the
> figure sports a Henry V haircut.
> <snip>
> > *A note from the Richard III Foundation:
> > The effigy head covering is a cap of maintenance rather than a
> coronet. There are no points on it to symbolize the coronet used
in
> the 15th century. The robing is out of date to the late fifteenth
> century and is more in style with the early 15 century. During
Edward
> IV's reign, the design was of shorter rather than the long
houppelane
> style."
> <snipping interesting, well-informed discussion>
>
> Carol responds:
> Not knowing what a houppelande was (the R III Foundation's
spelling,
> "houppelane," is a typo), I looked it up. I suspect that Marie
already
> knows it refers to a loose robe worn by both men and women in the
> fifteenth century. For those who, like me, are unfamiliar with the
> term, there's an excellent illustration under "1400-1500 Fashion"
at
> Wikipedia (yeah, I know. Wikipedia! but I liked the picture):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1400-1500_in_fashion
>
> It looks to me like a style worn in Chaucer's era. (The article
links
> to another on the houppelande itself and states that the style
began
> in the 1380s and lasted well into the next ecntury.)
>
> Carol, adding irrelevantly that, as you probably know, Chaucer was
an
> ancestor of Richard's heir, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln
>
Carol, it isn't irrelevant to me. Actually, I am researching some
possible de la Pole descendants, previously unproven. If you would
like to learn more, please e-mail me.

The worst thing about this programme?

That Buckingham is shown plotting against the King, Wolsey scheming
and Anne Boleyn sleeping around. In other words, it just assumes
that everyone is guilty of whatsoever Henry accused them - just as
Shakespeare's play and the Ray Winstone film had it. I had such
hopes ..............

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Joss Stone is to play Anne of Cleves later in the series.
>
> PS Why is it called "The TudorS" when it is really about only one
f
> them?
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Of course only one thing was missing from the Christie Miss
> Marple
> > book, Miss Marple. She wasn't in it!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 4 Aug 2008, at 08:32, Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't see any NEW anachronisms on Friday - the poisoner
boiled
> > > alive was a true story, if I recall - but I saw "Miss Marple:
> > > Towards Zero" last night. The book was written in 1944,
everyone
> > > dressed and behaved like they would in the thirties/ late
forties
> > > and yet there was an electronic scoreboard in the tennis match.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> > > <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> You missed the M off of Matheson. I wondered who played the
> Queen
> > > in
> > >> that series as she never showed up when I was watching!!!
(Guess
> > > who
> > >> isn't a fan of Miss Duff's?) The wonderful Tom Hardy was in it
> > > though.
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 27 Jul 2008, at 21:57, Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Incidentally, Stornoway-born Hans atheson (who appeared as
the
> > > Earl
> > >>> of Essex in "The Virgin Queen" oposite Anne-Marie Duff)
appears
> > > in
> > >>> the second series as Thomas Cranmer.
> > >>>
> > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> From: Stephen Lark
> > >>> To:
> > >>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:38 PM
> > >>> Subject: Re: Warning: The
Tydders
> > > are
> > >>> about to return to BBC2
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> It resumes this Friday at 21:00 BST on BBC2.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , "eileen"
> > >>> <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- In , Paul Trevor
> Bale
> > >>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thank you for making me laugh out loud, just when I needed
> to!
> > >>>>> Paul
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 23 Jul 2008, at 19:54, theblackprussian wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> They are then attacked by an enraged mob of viscious
> Ricardian
> > >>>>>> fundamentalists who they manage to defeat by throwing
copies
> > >>> of Alison
> > >>>>>> Weir's Princes in the Tower at them.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ditto Paul's comment, I too was in need for something to
> laugh
> > >>> over, thank you so much
> > >>>> Eileen
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard liveth yet
> >
>

Watched it again last night, part 8 of 10 as Ann Boleyn's career is
heading for it's end, Henry has his near-fatal jousting incident and
Jane Seymour comes to the fore. No executions for at least two weeks.

Incidentally, Cromwell's son was correctly named as Gregory - it seems
that Justin Pollard is the historical consultant.

Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland ever
deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
Reformation?

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland ever
> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
> Reformation?

I find it very entertaining viewing though, the parts of Henry, Anne and Catherine being
played very well. And if in fact when the story line strays from actual fact I dont really
mind at all. This is because I dont really care a fig about the opinions the majority of the
viewers may hold for Henry Vlll at the end of the series.
On the other hand, if and when a dramatisation of Richard lll ever makes it to our screens
I shall be spitting feathers if it gets it wrong. In fact I would feel so strongly about it I dont
think I would be able to bear to watch it.

Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it would make. It would
have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they say) i.e. Edward having
rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler, Elizabeth Lucy et al -
this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to the viewer that Edwards
inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal role in his son losing his
throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There would be blood and
guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc., Collingbourne being hung drawn &
quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having consented to having their
hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly those beautiful hennins
(it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds me up more than incorrect
costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course. A music score by Patrick
Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V). Pathos with the
deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic last charge at
Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely disappointed with the
ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the world that cannot be ever
changed....
Eileen
>

Eileen
I have just finished my 3rd draft of my script 'Richard'.
All I can say is, if anybody on this list has a spare UKP100million I
can get it made. Or knows anybody with that kind of cash.
I've had it read not only by Ricardian sympathisers but also by
people in the movie business, which I'm in, if you didn't already know.
And that is probably the reason nobody has yet attempted to film
Richard's story, the expense. In spite of CGI (Computer Generated
Images) the costume bill alone would be enormous.
I started my script by writing a short part of Richard's life, from
after Tewkesbury to after Bosworth. It didn't work, as I wanted, and
needed, to know how the characters had got to that point in their
lives, so I started earlier, then earlier, until I started with his
birth. That means basically the Wars of the Roses complete. Barnet,
Tewkesbury, Bosworth, the Burgundian exile etc. And my cast list
includes a number of very big names!
Wish me luck. Those who have read it think it's good, and they're no
sycophants. And I'm proud of it too. I simply must get this made so I
can die happy in the knowledge that a proper account of Richard's
life and times is out there!
Paul

taster...The night before his execution Buckingham is visited by
Lovel. As he is leaving Buckingham asks him if the axe will hurt.
Lovel calls over his shoulder "I hope so!"



On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:45, eileen wrote:

> --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
>> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
>> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland
>> ever
>> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
>> Reformation?
>
> I find it very entertaining viewing though, the parts of Henry,
> Anne and Catherine being
> played very well. And if in fact when the story line strays from
> actual fact I dont really
> mind at all. This is because I dont really care a fig about the
> opinions the majority of the
> viewers may hold for Henry Vlll at the end of the series.
> On the other hand, if and when a dramatisation of Richard lll ever
> makes it to our screens
> I shall be spitting feathers if it gets it wrong. In fact I would
> feel so strongly about it I dont
> think I would be able to bear to watch it.
>
> Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it
> would make. It would
> have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
> say) i.e. Edward having
> rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler,
> Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
> the viewer that Edwards
> inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal
> role in his son losing his
> throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There
> would be blood and
> guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
> Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
> consented to having their
> hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly
> those beautiful hennins
> (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds
> me up more than incorrect
> costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course.
> A music score by Patrick
> Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
> Henry V). Pathos with the
> deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic
> last charge at
> Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely
> disappointed with the
> ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the
> world that cannot be ever
> changed....
> Eileen
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:45 AM, eileen wrote:
>
> Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it
> would make. It would
> have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
> say) i.e. Edward having
> rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler,
> Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
> the viewer that Edwards
> inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal
> role in his son losing his
> throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There
> would be blood and
> guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
> Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
> consented to having their
> hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly
> those beautiful hennins
> (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds
> me up more than incorrect
> costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course.
> A music score by Patrick
> Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
> Henry V). Pathos with the
> deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic
> last charge at
> Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely
> disappointed with the
> ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the
> world that cannot be ever
> changed....
> Eileen

Wasn't there a post awhile back about Penman's Sunne in Splendour
being made into a movie? Or is that just *really* big wishful
thinking on my part?

Gilda

I think it really needs FOUR movies to do justice to the story,
something like the Lord of the Rings.

1. 1453 - 1461 (leading up to Towton)
2. 1461 - 1471 (leading up to Barnet)
3. 1471 - 1483 (Tewkesbury to the death of Edward)
4. 1483 - 1485 (leading up to Bosworth)

Each of these would feature a big battle for action fans.

Of course Richard would never indulge in "rampant" sex, so would
presumably father at least 3 bastards by parthenogenesis.

I had the idea that the first scene in the whole saga would be a boar
hunt; as would the last, sort of.

But as TV and film's obsession with the Chewdoors seems neverending,
I fear we'll have to wait a long, long time...



--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:45 AM, eileen wrote:
> >
> > Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story
it
> > would make. It would
> > have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
> > say) i.e. Edward having
> > rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor
Butler,
> > Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> > this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
> > the viewer that Edwards
> > inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a
pivotal
> > role in his son losing his
> > throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated.
There
> > would be blood and
> > guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
> > Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> > quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
> > consented to having their
> > hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear
correctly
> > those beautiful hennins
> > (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing
winds
> > me up more than incorrect
> > costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of
course.
> > A music score by Patrick
> > Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
> > Henry V). Pathos with the
> > deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that
heroic
> > last charge at
> > Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be
hugely
> > disappointed with the
> > ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in
the
> > world that cannot be ever
> > changed....
> > Eileen
>
> Wasn't there a post awhile back about Penman's Sunne in Splendour
> being made into a movie? Or is that just *really* big wishful
> thinking on my part?
>
> Gilda
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>

> And that is probably the reason nobody has yet attempted to film
> Richard's story, the expense. In spite of CGI (Computer Generated
> Images) the costume bill alone would be enormous.

Yes, I know. What about a tv series, but then you could not do justice to the battle scenes?

> I started my script by writing a short part of Richard's life, from
> after Tewkesbury to after Bosworth. It didn't work, as I wanted, and
> needed, to know how the characters had got to that point in their
> lives, so I started earlier, then earlier, until I started with his
> birth. That means basically the Wars of the Roses complete. Barnet,
> Tewkesbury, Bosworth, the Burgundian exile etc.

Again, yes I know. Because you would have to go back far (Richard's childhood/his
father's belief/reasons why he felt he was in line for the throne) to make the story
comprehensible. I think Black Prussions posting re it should be done in 4 parts makes
sense as Lord of the Rings was made but look at how much that film cost. Of course it
made mega money at the box office but let's be honest here - is Joe Public really that
interested in Richard lll. It has already been mentioned on this forum about, GENERALLY,
the British disinterest in their history. Again, to quote Black Prussion, any interest (and it
seems to be a passive interest in GENERAL) in history seems to start and end with the
Tudors. EVERYONE, child/adult, it would seem, in the UK has heard about - what is he
known as - "Bluff King Hal" & his many wives- and he seems to be regarded as not a bad
old bean as long as you were not married to him!! And before anyone posts an irate
response to what I have just said regarding British lack of interest in history (which
happened before when I said same) I would say that yes, if you are a forum member then
it is obvious you know your history/love it, but I would remind them that we forum
members/Ricardians are far outnumbered by say, the number of people that tune in to
watch Big Brother! I do not know why - it is just a fact.

And my cast list
> includes a number of very big names!

Of course, but, NOT Clive Owen please! He's like an animated plank of wood - how does
he get so many parts????

> Wish me luck. Those who have read it think it's good, and they're no
> sycophants. And I'm proud of it too. I simply must get this made so I
> can die happy in the knowledge that a proper account of Richard's
> life and times is out there!

Definitiely, I wish you all the luck in the world - never, ever, ever, give up (as Winston
Church said!)
>
>
> taster...The night before his execution Buckingham is visited by
> Lovel. As he is leaving Buckingham asks him if the axe will hurt.
> Lovel calls over his shoulder "I hope so!"

Lovely, I was going to say it would need a touch of humour here and there : 0 )

Eileen
>
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:45, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> > <stanleyc.jenkins@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
> >> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
> >> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland
> >> ever
> >> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
> >> Reformation?
> >
> > I find it very entertaining viewing though, the parts of Henry,
> > Anne and Catherine being
> > played very well. And if in fact when the story line strays from
> > actual fact I dont really
> > mind at all. This is because I dont really care a fig about the
> > opinions the majority of the
> > viewers may hold for Henry Vlll at the end of the series.
> > On the other hand, if and when a dramatisation of Richard lll ever
> > makes it to our screens
> > I shall be spitting feathers if it gets it wrong. In fact I would
> > feel so strongly about it I dont
> > think I would be able to bear to watch it.
> >
> > Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it
> > would make. It would
> > have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
> > say) i.e. Edward having
> > rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler,
> > Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> > this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
> > the viewer that Edwards
> > inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal
> > role in his son losing his
> > throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There
> > would be blood and
> > guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
> > Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> > quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
> > consented to having their
> > hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly
> > those beautiful hennins
> > (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds
> > me up more than incorrect
> > costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course.
> > A music score by Patrick
> > Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
> > Henry V). Pathos with the
> > deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic
> > last charge at
> > Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely
> > disappointed with the
> > ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the
> > world that cannot be ever
> > changed....
> > Eileen
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I think it really needs FOUR movies to do justice to the story,
> something like the Lord of the Rings.
>
> 1. 1453 - 1461 (leading up to Towton)
> 2. 1461 - 1471 (leading up to Barnet)
> 3. 1471 - 1483 (Tewkesbury to the death of Edward)
> 4. 1483 - 1485 (leading up to Bosworth)
>
> Each of these would feature a big battle for action fans.

Agreed
>
> Of course Richard would never indulge in "rampant" sex, so would
> presumably father at least 3 bastards by parthenogenesis.

Ageed .... Black Prussian you have made me smile ...again! : 0 )

I had to look up 'parthenogenesis' in a dictionary!!


>
> But as TV and film's obsession with the Chewdoors seems neverending,
> I fear we'll have to wait a long, long time...

Again agreed - I have left my comments in my posting prior to this one

Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , Gilda Felt
> <gildaevf@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sep 23, 2008, at 10:45 AM, eileen wrote:
> > >
> > > Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story
> it
> > > would make. It would
> > > have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
> > > say) i.e. Edward having
> > > rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor
> Butler,
> > > Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> > > this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
> > > the viewer that Edwards
> > > inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a
> pivotal
> > > role in his son losing his
> > > throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated.
> There
> > > would be blood and
> > > guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
> > > Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> > > quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
> > > consented to having their
> > > hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear
> correctly
> > > those beautiful hennins
> > > (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing
> winds
> > > me up more than incorrect
> > > costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of
> course.
> > > A music score by Patrick
> > > Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
> > > Henry V). Pathos with the
> > > deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that
> heroic
> > > last charge at
> > > Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be
> hugely
> > > disappointed with the
> > > ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in
> the
> > > world that cannot be ever
> > > changed....
> > > Eileen
> >
> > Wasn't there a post awhile back about Penman's Sunne in Splendour
> > being made into a movie? Or is that just *really* big wishful
> > thinking on my part?
> >
> > Gilda
> >
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen
> I have just finished my 3rd draft of my script 'Richard'.

Paul - I would like to apologise to you - on reconsidering my response to your message -
with regard to my question would British public be that much interested in Richard - I am
guilty of gross negativity. I am not usually a negative person, hate negativity and I should
have thought before pressing send. I am such a twit at times - Sorry.......... : 0 (

Eileen





> All I can say is, if anybody on this list has a spare UKP100million I
> can get it made. Or knows anybody with that kind of cash.
> I've had it read not only by Ricardian sympathisers but also by
> people in the movie business, which I'm in, if you didn't already know.
> And that is probably the reason nobody has yet attempted to film
> Richard's story, the expense. In spite of CGI (Computer Generated
> Images) the costume bill alone would be enormous.
> I started my script by writing a short part of Richard's life, from
> after Tewkesbury to after Bosworth. It didn't work, as I wanted, and
> needed, to know how the characters had got to that point in their
> lives, so I started earlier, then earlier, until I started with his
> birth. That means basically the Wars of the Roses complete. Barnet,
> Tewkesbury, Bosworth, the Burgundian exile etc. And my cast list
> includes a number of very big names!
> Wish me luck. Those who have read it think it's good, and they're no
> sycophants. And I'm proud of it too. I simply must get this made so I
> can die happy in the knowledge that a proper account of Richard's
> life and times is out there!
> Paul
>
> taster...The night before his execution Buckingham is visited by
> Lovel. As he is leaving Buckingham asks him if the axe will hurt.
> Lovel calls over his shoulder "I hope so!"
>
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:45, eileen wrote:
>
> > --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> > <stanleyc.jenkins@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
> >> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
> >> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland
> >> ever
> >> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
> >> Reformation?
> >
> > I find it very entertaining viewing though, the parts of Henry,
> > Anne and Catherine being
> > played very well. And if in fact when the story line strays from
> > actual fact I dont really
> > mind at all. This is because I dont really care a fig about the
> > opinions the majority of the
> > viewers may hold for Henry Vlll at the end of the series.
> > On the other hand, if and when a dramatisation of Richard lll ever
> > makes it to our screens
> > I shall be spitting feathers if it gets it wrong. In fact I would
> > feel so strongly about it I dont
> > think I would be able to bear to watch it.
> >
> > Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it
> > would make. It would
> > have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
> > say) i.e. Edward having
> > rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler,
> > Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> > this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
> > the viewer that Edwards
> > inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal
> > role in his son losing his
> > throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There
> > would be blood and
> > guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
> > Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> > quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
> > consented to having their
> > hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly
> > those beautiful hennins
> > (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds
> > me up more than incorrect
> > costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course.
> > A music score by Patrick
> > Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
> > Henry V). Pathos with the
> > deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic
> > last charge at
> > Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely
> > disappointed with the
> > ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the
> > world that cannot be ever
> > changed....
> > Eileen
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@> wrote:
> >
> > Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
> > programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors
are
> > good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern
Ireland ever
> > deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
> > Reformation?
>
> I find it very entertaining viewing though, the parts of Henry,
Anne and Catherine being
> played very well. And if in fact when the story line strays from
actual fact I dont really
> mind at all. This is because I dont really care a fig about the
opinions the majority of the
> viewers may hold for Henry Vlll at the end of the series.
> On the other hand, if and when a dramatisation of Richard lll ever
makes it to our screens
> I shall be spitting feathers if it gets it wrong. In fact I would
feel so strongly about it I dont
> think I would be able to bear to watch it.
>
> Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it
would make. It would
> have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
say) i.e. Edward having
> rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler,
Elizabeth Lucy et al -
> this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
the viewer that Edwards
> inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal
role in his son losing his
> throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There
would be blood and
> guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
Collingbourne being hung drawn &
> quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
consented to having their
> hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly
those beautiful hennins
> (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds
me up more than incorrect
> costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course.
A music score by Patrick
> Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
Henry V). Pathos with the
> deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic
last charge at
> Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely
disappointed with the
> ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the
world that cannot be ever
> changed....
> Eileen
> >
>
I did say we hadn't seen an execution for a while - last night,
Anne's "lovers" were on the chopping list to make up for it and I can
confidently time her end to within twenty-five minutes either way!

No problem Eileen. In fact I didn't see it as an insult. In fact you
are right about the public's attitude to history, though Richard made
it into the 100 favourite people in British History list!
Paul

On 25 Sep 2008, at 19:49, eileen wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Eileen
>> I have just finished my 3rd draft of my script 'Richard'.
>
> Paul - I would like to apologise to you - on reconsidering my
> response to your message -
> with regard to my question would British public be that much
> interested in Richard - I am
> guilty of gross negativity. I am not usually a negative person,
> hate negativity and I should
> have thought before pressing send. I am such a twit at times -
> Sorry.......... : 0 (
>
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>> All I can say is, if anybody on this list has a spare UKP100million I
>> can get it made. Or knows anybody with that kind of cash.
>> I've had it read not only by Ricardian sympathisers but also by
>> people in the movie business, which I'm in, if you didn't already
>> know.
>> And that is probably the reason nobody has yet attempted to film
>> Richard's story, the expense. In spite of CGI (Computer Generated
>> Images) the costume bill alone would be enormous.
>> I started my script by writing a short part of Richard's life, from
>> after Tewkesbury to after Bosworth. It didn't work, as I wanted, and
>> needed, to know how the characters had got to that point in their
>> lives, so I started earlier, then earlier, until I started with his
>> birth. That means basically the Wars of the Roses complete. Barnet,
>> Tewkesbury, Bosworth, the Burgundian exile etc. And my cast list
>> includes a number of very big names!
>> Wish me luck. Those who have read it think it's good, and they're no
>> sycophants. And I'm proud of it too. I simply must get this made so I
>> can die happy in the knowledge that a proper account of Richard's
>> life and times is out there!
>> Paul
>>
>> taster...The night before his execution Buckingham is visited by
>> Lovel. As he is leaving Buckingham asks him if the axe will hurt.
>> Lovel calls over his shoulder "I hope so!"
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 Sep 2008, at 15:45, eileen wrote:
>>
>>> --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
>>> <stanleyc.jenkins@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
>>>> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors
>>>> are
>>>> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland
>>>> ever
>>>> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
>>>> Reformation?
>>>
>>> I find it very entertaining viewing though, the parts of Henry,
>>> Anne and Catherine being
>>> played very well. And if in fact when the story line strays from
>>> actual fact I dont really
>>> mind at all. This is because I dont really care a fig about the
>>> opinions the majority of the
>>> viewers may hold for Henry Vlll at the end of the series.
>>> On the other hand, if and when a dramatisation of Richard lll ever
>>> makes it to our screens
>>> I shall be spitting feathers if it gets it wrong. In fact I would
>>> feel so strongly about it I dont
>>> think I would be able to bear to watch it.
>>>
>>> Why has Richard's story ever been attempted? And what a story it
>>> would make. It would
>>> have something for everyone - scenes of a sexual nature (as they
>>> say) i.e. Edward having
>>> rampant sex either with his wife and/or Jane Shore, Eleanor Butler,
>>> Elizabeth Lucy et al -
>>> this would have to be (unfortunetly) necessary to demonstrate to
>>> the viewer that Edwards
>>> inability to keep his sexual appetite under control had a pivotal
>>> role in his son losing his
>>> throne and the Plantagenets being more or less annihilated. There
>>> would be blood and
>>> guts all over the place ..... Towton/Tewskesbury etc.,
>>> Collingbourne being hung drawn &
>>> quartered ...yuk!! Beautiful costumes ...the actresses having
>>> consented to having their
>>> hairlines plucked ....ouch, painful but necessary to wear correctly
>>> those beautiful hennins
>>> (it is important to get details like this correct. Nothing winds
>>> me up more than incorrect
>>> costumes). Tender love scenes .... Richard and Anne of course.
>>> A music score by Patrick
>>> Doyle (he who wrote the brilliant music for Kenneth Brannagh's
>>> Henry V). Pathos with the
>>> deaths of Anne and Edward. Excitement and passion with that heroic
>>> last charge at
>>> Bosworth ....But come to think of it would the audience be hugely
>>> disappointed with the
>>> ending ......the wrong side winning.... with the best will in the
>>> world that cannot be ever
>>> changed....
>>> Eileen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard liveth yet
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

As her end approaches, has Natalie Dormer been good in the role of Anne Boleyn?

----- Original Message -----
From: Stanley C.Jenkins
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland ever
deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
Reformation?

Considering she had some of the most ridiculous costumes to wear she
didn't do that bad, though the way her character was written, in
other words, inaccurately, didn't help. And having Henry distraught
and in tears when told of her adultery was ludicrous, as he'd wanted
to get rid of her as fast as possible and went along gleefully with
Cromwell's plan.
Can't wait to see her end after this week's bloodbath on the block!
Tasteful? I hope not! :-)
What was wrong with filming in Eastern Europe? And which Elizabeth do
you mean? The Helen Mirren one that was terrific, with cgi
transforming the locations into 15th century London in a very
convincing way imo, or the one with the Scottish actress Anne-Marie
duff, which in spite of the presence of the wonderful Tom Hardy, was
pretty bad.
Eastern Europe stands in very well for a 15th and 16th century
England long disappeared from England itself!
Paul


On 29 Sep 2008, at 20:53, Stephen Lark wrote:

> As her end approaches, has Natalie Dormer been good in the role of
> Anne Boleyn?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stanley C.Jenkins
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 10:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are
> about to return to BBC2
>
>
> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern
> Ireland ever
> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
> Reformation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
> As her end approaches, has Natalie Dormer been good in the role of Anne Boleyn?

I think very much so. I think Natalie Dormer has portrayed the many facets of Anne's
personality very well. I particularly enjoyed watching her rip the necklace (a love token
from Henry) off wimpy Jane Seymour's neck,the scene where like a drowning man
clutching at straws, in this case her little daughter, she begs and pleads with Henry for one
last chance.... her arrogance when she was pregnant...her vulnerabilty when she is taken
to the Tower and her despair when she sees from her window the executions of her
brother and friends.
Im not saying that it happened in the way it has been portrayed ... it was clear from the
start of this serious it was not adhering to facts ..... and that was glaringly obvious when
Henry had only one sister (which I found rather odd - Why?) As one of the characters said
when interviewed this is not intended to be a history lesson. The clue is in the costumes
which are not accurate.
Casting aside the torture scenes, when Smeeton was being tortured I had to leave the
room....I really annoyed my husband by calling out several times 'is it over yet' ;0/ ..I have
enjoyed the series so far but am wondering if I will so much after Anne is topped on
Sunday .... I dont think it will be the same without her.

By the by .... what a monster Henry must have been. Im sure, given time, Anne would
have been able to present him with a son. She certainly had no problem in getting
pregnant and suffered no more than any other woman in those times from
miscarriages/stillbirths and babies dying soon after birth. I believe La Woodville, Eleanor
of Castile and Cecily Neville, to name a few off the top of my head, all suffered losses such
as these but went on to have large families.

Eileen

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stanley C.Jenkins
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 10:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to
BBC2
>
>
> Well at least its not filmed in Eastern Europe (like the recent
> programme about Elizabeth I). And the dark, candle-lit interiors are
> good. On the other hand, how can a series made in Southern Ireland ever
> deal even-handedly with the complex issues which surrounded the
> Reformation?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be, her
last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr. It was
pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn was
innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final confession.
Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be,
her
> last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr. It was
> pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn
was
> innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final
confession.
> Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
>
Thanks. Series three next summer: can they make ten episodes out of the
Jane Seymour marriage: wedding, pregnancy, childbirth, death, funeral.

--- On Sat, 10/4/08, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
To:
Received: Saturday, October 4, 2008, 11:09 AM






--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@ ...> wrote:
>
> The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be,
her
> last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr. It was
> pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn
was
> innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final
confession.
> Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
>
Thanks. Series three next summer: can they make ten episodes out of the
Jane Seymour marriage: wedding, pregnancy, childbirth, death, funeral.
they can probably do it with 3-5 episodes..and then toss in the cleves escapade and the introduction of catharine howard to round out the season.
the following season would be 5-7 episodes of catherine howard and her romps, and filling out the "possible" series finale, katherine parr and h8's death.
now..as the series is called the tudors..it could go on to boy kind e6, his rumoured relationship with jane grey, granddau of h8's sister. they could play up young elizabeth and bloody mary in the last few episodes of the previous season, and continue to evolve their story with mary's ascent to the throne as the season finale.
the next season could be mary's story..might even get a couple of seasons out of that. flash backs to her youth, her thoughts of her mother's "betrayal" and how it coloured her reign and her treatment of elizabeth during the reign...and then a whole new series..elizabeth.


 

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be, her
> last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr.

I dont actually see her as a martyr. A martyr is someone who dies for their faith. Anne
was done away with because Henry had grown tired of her and wanted rid of her.
Although why he couldnt have simply had her death sentence commuted I do not
understand as their marriage had been declared nul and void and Elizabeth a bastard.
What a nasty piece of work Henry was.
Eileen


It was
> pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn was
> innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final confession.
> Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
>

Bear in mind that Henry was planning to marry again - and needed to, as he had now bastardised both his daughters and had no obvious heir. That Catherine of Aragon had still been alive caused enormous complications when he sought to marry Anne Boleyn (and left question marks about the validity of the marriage and hence the legitimacy of the issue). Now that Catherine was dead, if he executed Anne he would be a widower and so there could be no doubt about the validity of his marriage to Jane Seymour and the legitimacy of the son he was hoping for (and finally got).

Ann



----- Original Message ----
From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 5 October, 2008 12:30:37 PM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@ ...> wrote:
>
> The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be, her
> last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr.

I dont actually see her as a martyr. A martyr is someone who dies for their faith. Anne
was done away with because Henry had grown tired of her and wanted rid of her.
Although why he couldnt have simply had her death sentence commuted I do not
understand as their marriage had been declared nul and void and Elizabeth a bastard.
What a nasty piece of work Henry was.
Eileen

It was
> pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn was
> innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final confession.
> Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
>

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Bear in mind that Henry was planning to marry again - and needed to, as he had now
bastardised both his daughters and had no obvious heir. That Catherine of Aragon had still
been alive caused enormous complications when he sought to marry Anne Boleyn (and left
question marks about the validity of the marriage and hence the legitimacy of the issue).
Now that Catherine was dead, if he executed Anne he would be a widower and so there
could be no doubt about the validity of his marriage to Jane Seymour and the legitimacy of
the son he was hoping for (and finally got).
>
> Ann

Well, when put like that, I have to agree with you. However I still hate him ........ ;0/
Eileen
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 5 October, 2008 12:30:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be, her
> > last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr.
>
> I dont actually see her as a martyr. A martyr is someone who dies for their faith. Anne
> was done away with because Henry had grown tired of her and wanted rid of her.
> Although why he couldnt have simply had her death sentence commuted I do not
> understand as their marriage had been declared nul and void and Elizabeth a bastard.
> What a nasty piece of work Henry was.
> Eileen
>
> It was
> > pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> > confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> > held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn was
> > innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final confession.
> > Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> > day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> > Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
> >
>
>
>
>
>

"If she was guilty"?
No doubt in my mind she was completely innocent of all the things she
was accused of. The idea that she held out for so long to get the man
of her choice, and the crown, only to throw it away so easily,
putting the lives of her beloved daughter and her family in jeopardy
as well as her own ! Henry just couldn't live with the idea that the
problem having healthy children could lie with him.
But agreed, found her last moments very moving. The first episode
I've really enjoyed, because, the confession scene apart, it was
fairly factual. The true, and unnerving, scene where she laughs at
the thought of only having a tiny neck, was very well done.
Why the ladies in waiting were dressed like milk maids though is
beyond me. The worst thing about the entire series has been the
inaccuracy and at time ridiculousness of the costumes! So well
documented too.
Paul


On 4 Oct 2008, at 15:51, Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:

> The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be,
> her
> last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr. It was
> pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn was
> innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final
> confession.
> Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Why the ladies in waiting were dressed like milk maids though is
> beyond me. The worst thing about the entire series has been the
> inaccuracy and at time ridiculousness of the costumes! So well
> documented too.
> Paul

Yes why??? They looked like something out of The Sound of Music..... Who dreamed up
those costumes..... completely beyond me.
Eileen
>
> On 4 Oct 2008, at 15:51, Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
>
> > The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would be,
> > her
> > last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr. It was
> > pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> > confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions should be
> > held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne Boleyn was
> > innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final
> > confession.
> > Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion on the
> > day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has been the
> > Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@>
wrote:
> >
> > Bear in mind that Henry was planning to marry again - and needed
to, as he had now
> bastardised both his daughters and had no obvious heir. That
Catherine of Aragon had still
> been alive caused enormous complications when he sought to marry
Anne Boleyn (and left
> question marks about the validity of the marriage and hence the
legitimacy of the issue).
> Now that Catherine was dead, if he executed Anne he would be a
widower and so there
> could be no doubt about the validity of his marriage to Jane
Seymour and the legitimacy of
> the son he was hoping for (and finally got).
> >
> > Ann
>
> Well, when put like that, I have to agree with you. However I
still hate him ........ ;0/
> Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: eileen <ebatesparrot@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 5 October, 2008 12:30:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are
about to return to BBC2
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Stanley
C.Jenkins"
> > <stanleyc.jenkins@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > The demise of Queen Anne was far better than I thought it would
be, her
> > > last hours being portrayed as those of a Protestant martyr.
> >
> > I dont actually see her as a martyr. A martyr is someone who dies
for their faith. Anne
> > was done away with because Henry had grown tired of her and
wanted rid of her.
> > Although why he couldnt have simply had her death sentence
commuted I do not
> > understand as their marriage had been declared nul and void and
Elizabeth a bastard.
> > What a nasty piece of work Henry was.
> > Eileen
> >
> > It was
> > > pleasing that Archbishop Cranmer was (correctly) shown as her
> > > confessor, although I had always assumed that confessions
should be
> > > held in confidence. In truth, the only man who knew if Anne
Boleyn was
> > > innocent or not was Thomas Cranmer, who had heard her final
confession.
> > > Perhaps significantly, he was overcome with grief and emotion
on the
> > > day of her death, and is said to have exclaimed "She who has
been the
> > > Queen of England upon earth today became a Queen in Heaven".
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Does this explain why Archbishop Cranmer was on Mary's hit list,
because he was her stepmother's (stepmothers'?) confessor? I know she
reprieved him for treason in 1554 but he was an old man and other
recantees were allowed to live.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> Does this explain why Archbishop Cranmer was on Mary's hit list,
> because he was her stepmother's (stepmothers'?) confessor? I know she
> reprieved him for treason in 1554 but he was an old man and other
> recantees were allowed to live.

You might have hit on something here Stephen - nothing would surprise me about this
bloodcurdling ruthless and cruel family descended from a usurper- if you were
prostestant you burned, if you were catholic you still burned. Maybe Elizabeth was the
best one although I find it hard to forgive the treatment of the English sailors after the
Armada. They did not receive their pay and were reduced to living (and dying) in the
streets. Many died of disease and some had lost limbs. I think it was Drake who sold
some of his belongings to help these brave men. Scandalous. Why did Elizabeth not
intervene and make sure these men were treated in the correct fashion they deserved.
She must have been aware of it. After I learned about this episode her wonderful speech
at Tilbury sounds rather hollow.
Eileen
>

At 20:03 09/10/2008, Eileen wrote:
> After I learned about this episode her wonderful speech
>at Tilbury sounds rather hollow.

I understand that the Tilbury speech has a provenance rather less
convincing than Thomas More's observations on the fate of the princes.

Wikipedia confirms something I recently heard, that the texts(!) were
recorded in 1612 and 1624
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_to_the_Troops_at_Tilbury If
she made a speech, it was probably improved with hindsight.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

I have always thought that Archbishop Cranmer was burned to death by
Mary I because he had pronounced the divorce between her mother and
Henry VIII.

interesting and probable theory. those tudors were nothing if not revengeful. mary was certainly her mother's daughter too. i think the only thing that saved elizabeth's head was "how would it look to the commoners", as well as the more moderate peers.
 
mary had a balancing act, right from the beginning of her reign. she had to take back her throne from lady jane. who inherited it legally, but not necessarily morally from e6.
 
mary certainly had an ill fated life. i've read somewhere she is just as maligned as richard iii. haven't followed up on it tho.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Stanley C.Jenkins <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:

From: Stanley C.Jenkins <stanleyc.jenkins@...>
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
To:
Received: Monday, October 13, 2008, 7:44 AM






I have always thought that Archbishop Cranmer was burned to death by
Mary I because he had pronounced the divorce between her mother and
Henry VIII.

Not only had Archbishop Cranmer pronounced the divorce between
Katherine of Aragon and Henry VIII which had bastardised Mary I, he was
also seen as the leader of the Reformation. He thus made an ideal scape-
goat and it seems most unlikely that the Catholics wanted him to
recant. When he did so, it made it more difficult for them to burn him -
although there had been other instances of repentant "heretics" being
burned despite their recantations, a notable example being Thomas
Bilney.

Edward VI's will, in which he named Jane Grey as his successor, was highly dubious legally. First, he was a minor, so could not make a valid will. Second, there is a strong suspicion of what in law is known as 'undue influence'.
 
Ann



----- Original Message ----
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 13 October, 2008 5:45:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


interesting and probable theory. those tudors were nothing if not revengeful. mary was certainly her mother's daughter too. i think the only thing that saved elizabeth's head was "how would it look to the commoners", as well as the more moderate peers.
 
mary had a balancing act, right from the beginning of her reign. she had to take back her throne from lady jane. who inherited it legally, but not necessarily morally from e6.
 
mary certainly had an ill fated life. i've read somewhere she is just as maligned as richard iii. haven't followed up on it tho.
 
roslyn

--- On Mon, 10/13/08, Stanley C.Jenkins <stanleyc.jenkins@ yahoo.co. uk> wrote:

From: Stanley C.Jenkins <stanleyc.jenkins@ yahoo.co. uk>
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Received: Monday, October 13, 2008, 7:44 AM

I have always thought that Archbishop Cranmer was burned to death by
Mary I because he had pronounced the divorce between her mother and
Henry VIII.

Hi, Ann!



In the usual case a minor can't make a will, though there are exceptions to
that rule. If Edward could not create a valid will, surely that would have
been considered at the time. Why and how was it deemed valid? Also, out of
curiosity, if Jane Grey had not been found to be the heir, who would have
been found to be the heir to the throne? Mary? Or Elizabeth? Or someone else
further afield?



Best,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

email - jltournier@...

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

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



-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of A LYON
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:56 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about
to return to BBC2



Edward VI's will, in which he named Jane Grey as his successor, was highly
dubious legally. First, he was a minor, so could not make a valid will.
Second, there is a strong suspicion of what in law is known as 'undue
influence'.

Ann

Exceptions under modern English law (although they go back quite a way) are 'a soldier in actual military service' and 'a sailor in his ship'. Neither of these applied to Edward VI.
 
Essentially, the whole business of Jane Grey as Edward's heir was dreamed up by her father-in-law, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. He was in control of the government at the time and persuaded Edward to make the will, then proclaimed that it was valid.
 
Who was the 'legal' heir was then a very moot point. Henry VIII had disinherited both his daughters, and his Act of Settlement excluded the issue of Margaret Tudor, the elder of his two sisters. That left the issue of his other sister Mary, by Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. They were Frances Grey and her three daughters. However, Frances Grey's legitimacy was questionable because of doubt as to whether her father had been free to marry when he married Mary Tudor (he had at least one wife living). Frances Grey did not die until 1559, so would have priority in the succession over her daughters. If the legislation leaving Margaret Tudor's issue out of the succession is ignored, then the rightful heir was Mary Queen of Scots, otherwise Frances Grey, followed by Jane as her eldest daughter.
 
Henry VIII's Act of Succession of 1536 set a fixed age of royal majority (18) for the first time, so it cannot be argued that Edward VI, who died at 15, was able to make a valid will because he was a king.
 
Ann



----- Original Message ----
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October, 2008 11:55:49 AM
Subject: RE: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


Hi, Ann!

In the usual case a minor can't make a will, though there are exceptions to
that rule. If Edward could not create a valid will, surely that would have
been considered at the time. Why and how was it deemed valid? Also, out of
curiosity, if Jane Grey had not been found to be the heir, who would have
been found to be the heir to the throne? Mary? Or Elizabeth? Or someone else
further afield?

Best,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

email - jltournier@ns. sympatico. ca

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of A LYON
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:56 AM
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about
to return to BBC2

Edward VI's will, in which he named Jane Grey as his successor, was highly
dubious legally. First, he was a minor, so could not make a valid will.
Second, there is a strong suspicion of what in law is known as 'undue
influence'.

Ann

Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
>
> Exceptions under modern English law (although they go back quite a way) are 'a soldier in actual military service' and 'a sailor in his ship'. Neither of these applied to Edward VI.
>  
> Essentially, the whole business of Jane Grey as Edward's heir was dreamed up by her father-in-law, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. He was in control of the government at the time and persuaded Edward to make the will, then proclaimed that it was valid.
>  
> Who was the 'legal' heir was then a very moot point. Henry VIII had disinherited both his daughters, and his Act of Settlement excluded the issue of Margaret Tudor, the elder of his two sisters. That left the issue of his other sister Mary, by Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. They were Frances Grey and her three daughters. However, Frances Grey's legitimacy was questionable because of doubt as to whether her father had been free to marry when he married Mary Tudor (he had at least one wife living). Frances Grey did not die until 1559, so would have priority in the succession over her daughters. If the legislation leaving Margaret Tudor's issue out of the succession is ignored, then the rightful heir was Mary Queen of Scots, otherwise Frances Grey, followed by Jane as her eldest daughter.
>  
> Henry VIII's Act of Succession of 1536 set a fixed age of royal majority (18) for the first time, so it cannot be argued that Edward VI, who died at 15, was able to make a valid will because he was a king.
>  
> Ann
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October, 2008 11:55:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
>
>
> Hi, Ann!
>
> In the usual case a minor can't make a will, though there are exceptions to
> that rule. If Edward could not create a valid will, surely that would have
> been considered at the time. Why and how was it deemed valid? Also, out of
> curiosity, if Jane Grey had not been found to be the heir, who would have
> been found to be the heir to the throne? Mary? Or Elizabeth? Or someone else
> further afield?
>
> Best,
>
> Johanne
>
> ============ ========= ===
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> email - jltournier@ns. sympatico. ca
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
>
> ============ ========= ===
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> [mailto:richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of A LYON
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:56 AM
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about
> to return to BBC2
>
> Edward VI's will, in which he named Jane Grey as his successor, was highly
> dubious legally. First, he was a minor, so could not make a valid will.
> Second, there is a strong suspicion of what in law is known as 'undue
> influence'.
>
> Ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!

It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".

I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!

Do her good...the young tramp!

stephenmlark wrote:
>
>
> > Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
>
> It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin
> overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
>
> I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when
> Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the
> series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2317 - Release Date: 08/21/09 06:04:00
>
>

and what would you call her husband? she was significantly more virtueous than him.
it would appear anne of cleves was the only moral one of the whole court and era. 
 
i believe old hank offed his wives because they had been betrothed before they married him.
h8 knew what happened to his grandfather e4's widow and children. that was the issue..not that she was playing with other men. wife 2 had already twittered to court he was an unreliable lover.
 
we are also talking of an era of codpieces and bare-breasted women at court in the latest fashions.
 
i don't think she was a tramp..she was a woman of her era who failed to disclose any encumbrances to her marriage to a bluebeard..so off with her head.

 
roslyn
--- On Fri, 8/21/09, Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:


From: Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
To:
Received: Friday, August 21, 2009, 5:40 PM


 



Do her good...the young tramp!

stephenmlark wrote:
>
>
> > Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
>
> It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin
> overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
>
> I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when
> Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the
> series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2317 - Release Date: 08/21/09 06:04:00
>
>

Sorry, Roslyn, I was being facetious. I should have included a smiley
emoticon :-) I know she was OK, and wasn't judging her.

fayre rose wrote:
>
>
> and what would you call her husband? she was significantly more
> virtueous than him.
> it would appear anne of cleves was the only moral one of the whole
> court and era.
>
> i believe old hank offed his wives because they had been betrothed
> before they married him.
> h8 knew what happened to his grandfather e4's widow and children. that
> was the issue..not that she was playing with other men. wife 2 had
> already twittered to court he was an unreliable lover.
>
> we are also talking of an era of codpieces and bare-breasted women at
> court in the latest fashions.
>
> i don't think she was a tramp..she was a woman of her era who failed
> to disclose any encumbrances to her marriage to a bluebeard..so off
> with her head.
>
>
> roslyn
> --- On Fri, 8/21/09, Bill Barber <bbarber@...
> <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
>
> From: Bill Barber <bbarber@... <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>>
> Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are
> about to return to BBC2
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Received: Friday, August 21, 2009, 5:40 PM
>
>
>
> Do her good...the young tramp!
>
> stephenmlark wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
> >
> > It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin
> > overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
> >
> > I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when
> > Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the
> > series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2317 - Release Date:
> 08/21/09 06:04:00
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.64/2318 - Release Date: 08/21/09 18:06:00
>
>

You want historical accuracy, watch Desperate Romantics. Take a few
characters from history, mention vaguely that they got to be friends
because they liked painting, then spend the next six hours getting
them out of their clothes shagging various naked women. On the odd
occasion they find themselves dressed they bump into Charles Dickens,
often!
'Isn't that Charles Dickens over there writing?'
He doesn't tell us which book he is working on in the coffee house,
though the place does look a bit bleak........:-)
Paul


On 21 Aug 2009, at 22:40, Bill Barber wrote:

> Do her good...the young tramp!
>
> stephenmlark wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
>>
>> It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin
>> overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
>>
>> I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when
>> Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the
>> series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or
>> something!
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.63/2317 - Release Date:
>> 08/21/09 06:04:00
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

On 22 Aug 2009, at 01:15, fayre rose wrote:

> h8 knew what happened to his grandfather e4's widow and children.

Kept a lot of it it to himself then didn't he? Or did he leave notes
for Shakespeare! :-)
Paul


Richard liveth yet

not really, shakespeare scrounged his basic info from the chronicles of hollingshed and hall. and if shakespeare wanted to keep his head and writing career he wrote to please the reigning monarch.
 
the tudor lineage was tainted by titus regis, making all of e4's children illegitimate. knowing  it happened would have weighed heavily upon h8. anne and catherine lost their heads because of their former and unrevoked commitment of betrothal to other men. the sexual indescretion accusations were the candy coating to hide the truth.
 
historians just don't seem to bring forward the facts. they would rather have us enamoured with sex. sex sells. truth is buried and bent by the victors. the protestant movement brought into being the puritan age. that is when sex really became taboo outside of matrimony.
 
if you really want to make a comparison between the long lasting effect of puritanism on culture. compare european, including english attitudes towards sex and the north american prudish double standard. basically, it is don't do it..but look like you are a professional for rent even if you are only 8 years old.
 
restriction of sexual freedom is for the masses. men having mistresses and/or concubines has been accepted throughout history. the women got the "gamey" reputation. the man simply labelled the woman as free and easy, and it was believed. the label of illegitimate was simply a way for a man to deny any responsibility towards an unwanted child...or to deny a child an inheritance.
 
aristrocrats did and still do what they want in their bedrooms as long as they are discreet.
for centuries common law was accepted by the masses. they had nothing to leave their children and divorice was expensive or had to have parliamentry approval until the 20th C.
 
the protestant religion pushed marriage into vogue as a way of shaming the common people. one could gain status and salvation by being officially married. it was also a great money money maker. a penny here and there, or even a gold ring. marriage by a priest wasn't even necessary until the 13th C. but the church would have us believe formal marriage vows before the clergy of any christian religion has been mandated since the first century...again more bending and denial of the truth.
 
in the early 19th C, in england getting married by licence aka a civil ceremony became in vogue and status inducing. but it was just another money grab by the lords temporal. they wanted what the lords spiritual had been gleaning for centuries...a penny here and a penny there.
 
boy do we love our candy coated history. don't look behind the curtain dorothy!
 
rest in peace - good king richard. the masses are still licking shakespeare's lollipop of lies..and any other bonbon the lords spiritual and temporal put before us.
 
nourish your mind...eliminate sugar coating from its diet.
 

--- On Sat, 8/22/09, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
To:
Received: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 8:04 AM


 




On 22 Aug 2009, at 01:15, fayre rose wrote:

> h8 knew what happened to his grandfather e4's widow and children.

Kept a lot of it it to himself then didn't he? Or did he leave notes
for Shakespeare! :-)
Paul

Richard liveth yet

--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> > Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
>
> It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
>
> I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!


Ann:
I have the Pierce biography of Margaret Pole in hand, and it says that Reginald "had taken his BA at Oxford in 1515, and in 1518 the king presented him as Dean to the collegiate church of Wimbourne Minister. A little later, two prebends in Salisbury Cathedral were presented to him. Finally, in 1521, he left England for the University of Padua, having been presented with £100 from the king for his first year of study, and probably to be received annually."

L.P.H.,

Ann

...who realizes that the above does not specifically state that Reginald took orders by 1518, but finds it suggestive.

Anne, I attach JA-H's answers below:

Reginald Pole was made a cardinal by Pope Paul III on 22 December 1536. At that time he had certainly already received the tonsure and was therefore no longer a layman. I have not found any clear statement as to the precise rank he had then attained within the clerical hierarchy, but since the College of Cardinals in the sixteenth century (as also now) was composed of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, and Pole was initially created a cardinal deacon, he had probably attained the diaconate (though in those days there were also sub-deacons, and it may be possible that he was one of those - I'm not sure). He was not ordained to the priesthood until 20 March 1557 (being consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury two days later).
Deacons are 'The Revd.' - but they are not called 'Father'.

So, at the time, he was no higher than a Deacon. In a way we are both right but he should not have been called "Father".

----- Original Message -----
From: axsc2
To:
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


--- In , "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> > Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
>
> It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
>
> I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!

Ann:
I have the Pierce biography of Margaret Pole in hand, and it says that Reginald "had taken his BA at Oxford in 1515, and in 1518 the king presented him as Dean to the collegiate church of Wimbourne Minister. A little later, two prebends in Salisbury Cathedral were presented to him. Finally, in 1521, he left England for the University of Padua, having been presented with £100 from the king for his first year of study, and probably to be received annually."

L.P.H.,

Ann

...who realizes that the above does not specifically state that Reginald took orders by 1518, but finds it suggestive.

Whatever clerical status Cardinal Pole had at the time, he would not have been called Father in Tudor England. The title of Father was only introduced into this country in the mid-nineteenth century when the Irish custom of addressing priests by this title was taken up with approval by Cardinal Manning.
In the middle ages priests were regarded as honorary knights and called Sir before their names-
Alan Bond-- On Tue, 25/8/09, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
To:
Date: Tuesday, 25 August, 2009, 8:59 PM


 



Anne, I attach JA-H's answers below:

Reginald Pole was made a cardinal by Pope Paul III on 22 December 1536. At that time he had certainly already received the tonsure and was therefore no longer a layman. I have not found any clear statement as to the precise rank he had then attained within the clerical hierarchy, but since the College of Cardinals in the sixteenth century (as also now) was composed of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, and Pole was initially created a cardinal deacon, he had probably attained the diaconate (though in those days there were also sub-deacons, and it may be possible that he was one of those - I'm not sure). He was not ordained to the priesthood until 20 March 1557 (being consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury two days later).
Deacons are 'The Revd.' - but they are not called 'Father'.

So, at the time, he was no higher than a Deacon. In a way we are both right but he should not have been called "Father".

----- Original Message -----
From: axsc2
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "stephenmlark" <stephenmlark@ ...> wrote:
>
> > Warning: Series Three starts next Friday!
>
> It has started (ten minutes late due to the athletics in Berlin overrunning) and we have seen Reginald Pole, addressed as "Father".
>
> I am fairly sure that he did not take holy orders until 1553, when Mary's reign began. This is probably the first anachronism of the series - I half expect Catherine Howard to be electrocuted or something!

Ann:
I have the Pierce biography of Margaret Pole in hand, and it says that Reginald "had taken his BA at Oxford in 1515, and in 1518 the king presented him as Dean to the collegiate church of Wimbourne Minister. A little later, two prebends in Salisbury Cathedral were presented to him. Finally, in 1521, he left England for the University of Padua, having been presented with £100 from the king for his first year of study, and probably to be received annually."

L.P.H.,

Ann

...who realizes that the above does not specifically state that Reginald took orders by 1518, but finds it suggestive.

This is really fascinating. I did not know this about the honorific
"Father". Thank you, Alan.

I have not seen "The Tudors" since I don't have HBO, but I am not even sure
I want to see it since I'll probably be yelling at the TV the whole time.

But I love it when some relatively obscure point trips them up - like the
"Father" situation.



L.M.L.,

Janet

Stephen:

So, at the time, he was no higher than a Deacon. In a way we are both
right but he should not have been called "Father".

Ann:
Very interesting! The Pierce book also suggests that Reginald
wasn't 100% happy with being assigned to the Church as a young man (but
Margaret wasn't wealthy enough at the time to provide a dozen manors to
support him in the style he'd have liked).

L.P.H.,

Ann

Reginald was mentioned a few times again last night whilst his mother appeared. Jane Seymour has passed away within three hours of the new series.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sharp, Ann (GT&D)
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


Stephen:

So, at the time, he was no higher than a Deacon. In a way we are both
right but he should not have been called "Father".

Ann:
Very interesting! The Pierce book also suggests that Reginald
wasn't 100% happy with being assigned to the Church as a young man (but
Margaret wasn't wealthy enough at the time to provide a dozen manors to
support him in the style he'd have liked).

L.P.H.,

Ann

Although nobody is even pretending that this programme bears any resemblance to the history of Tudor England, the minor error that has been identified in connection with the use of the term "father" for a priest is totally insignificant. Much worse, in my view, is the insidious anti-Protestant bias which has permeated the series since its very inception. We have already had a saintly Katherine of Aragon and a whiter-than-white Sir Thomas More; however, we have now reached the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace.

True to form, and contrary to historical evidence, the Pilgrimage of Grace (which was really four distinct uprisings), was portrayed as a purely religious event in which blameless Catholics end up being lynched by the murderous Protestants, while the Dissolution was depicted as a violent attack upon church property in which religious buildings were burned down by the King's men. In reality, the process of Dissolution was conducted with efficiency and surprising humanity (at least for the period).

Many monks found new employment as parish priests, while some became secular canons. Others received state pensions of perhaps five or six pounds per annum. There were even cases of small numbers of monks or nuns continuing to live together in religious communities long after the Reformation – their quiet and simple lives being, in many ways, much closer to the monastic ideal than had been the case prior to the Dissolution.

Stanley,

Very good point. By contrast, the ITV mini-series with Ray Winstone was totally Henry-centred but I think it was Shakespeare-based. For history, we may as well be watching Carry On, Henry.

Stephen.

----- Original Message -----
From: stanleyc.jenkins
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


Although nobody is even pretending that this programme bears any resemblance to the history of Tudor England, the minor error that has been identified in connection with the use of the term "father" for a priest is totally insignificant. Much worse, in my view, is the insidious anti-Protestant bias which has permeated the series since its very inception. We have already had a saintly Katherine of Aragon and a whiter-than-white Sir Thomas More; however, we have now reached the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace.

True to form, and contrary to historical evidence, the Pilgrimage of Grace (which was really four distinct uprisings), was portrayed as a purely religious event in which blameless Catholics end up being lynched by the murderous Protestants, while the Dissolution was depicted as a violent attack upon church property in which religious buildings were burned down by the King's men. In reality, the process of Dissolution was conducted with efficiency and surprising humanity (at least for the period).

Many monks found new employment as parish priests, while some became secular canons. Others received state pensions of perhaps five or six pounds per annum. There were even cases of small numbers of monks or nuns continuing to live together in religious communities long after the Reformation - their quiet and simple lives being, in many ways, much closer to the monastic ideal than had been the case prior to the Dissolution.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Stanley,
>
> Very good point. By contrast, the ITV mini-series with Ray Winstone was totally Henry-centred but I think it was Shakespeare-based. For history, we may as well be watching Carry On, Henry.
>
> Stephen.

Im really enjoying this series. I thought Gerard McSorley played Robert Aske extremely well and movingly. So much so I totally forgive him that he forgot to remove his wristwatch in the scene where he was bidding his wife goodbye to leave for London Lol lol... I found the execution scene, with Gerard's portrayal of Aske's pain so convincing, that I could hardly bear to watch. I had my hand on the lid of my laptop in readiness to slam it shut just in case. However I did see it through...what cruel times they were...

One good thing to come from this series (for me) it has sparked an interest in the Pilgrimage of Grace which I knew hardly anything about. Robert Aske was a courageous, courageous man, no mistake about it. Why has the Catholic Church never canonised him?? And I found myself thinking about this brave man long after the programme had ended...
eileen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stanleyc.jenkins
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
>
>
> Although nobody is even pretending that this programme bears any resemblance to the history of Tudor England, the minor error that has been identified in connection with the use of the term "father" for a priest is totally insignificant. Much worse, in my view, is the insidious anti-Protestant bias which has permeated the series since its very inception. We have already had a saintly Katherine of Aragon and a whiter-than-white Sir Thomas More; however, we have now reached the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace.
>
> True to form, and contrary to historical evidence, the Pilgrimage of Grace (which was really four distinct uprisings), was portrayed as a purely religious event in which blameless Catholics end up being lynched by the murderous Protestants, while the Dissolution was depicted as a violent attack upon church property in which religious buildings were burned down by the King's men. In reality, the process of Dissolution was conducted with efficiency and surprising humanity (at least for the period).
>
> Many monks found new employment as parish priests, while some became secular canons. Others received state pensions of perhaps five or six pounds per annum. There were even cases of small numbers of monks or nuns continuing to live together in religious communities long after the Reformation - their quiet and simple lives being, in many ways, much closer to the monastic ideal than had been the case prior to the Dissolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Stanley,
>
> Very good point. By contrast, the ITV mini-series with Ray Winstone was totally Henry-centred but I think it was Shakespeare-based. For history, we may as well be watching Carry On, Henry.
>
> Stephen.

Im really enjoying this series. I thought Gerard McSorley played Robert Aske extremely well and movingly. So much so I totally forgive him that he forgot to remove his wristwatch in the scene where he was bidding his wife goodbye to leave for London Lol lol... I found the execution scene, with Gerard's portrayal of Aske's pain so convincing, that I could hardly bear to watch. I had my hand on the lid of my laptop in readiness to slam it shut just in case. However I did see it through...what cruel times they were...

One good thing to come from this series (for me) it has sparked an interest in the Pilgrimage of Grace which I knew hardly anything about. Robert Aske was a courageous, courageous man, no mistake about it. Why has the Catholic Church never canonised him?? And I found myself thinking about this brave man long after the programme had ended...
eileen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stanleyc.jenkins
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
>
>
> Although nobody is even pretending that this programme bears any resemblance to the history of Tudor England, the minor error that has been identified in connection with the use of the term "father" for a priest is totally insignificant. Much worse, in my view, is the insidious anti-Protestant bias which has permeated the series since its very inception. We have already had a saintly Katherine of Aragon and a whiter-than-white Sir Thomas More; however, we have now reached the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace.
>
> True to form, and contrary to historical evidence, the Pilgrimage of Grace (which was really four distinct uprisings), was portrayed as a purely religious event in which blameless Catholics end up being lynched by the murderous Protestants, while the Dissolution was depicted as a violent attack upon church property in which religious buildings were burned down by the King's men. In reality, the process of Dissolution was conducted with efficiency and surprising humanity (at least for the period).
>
> Many monks found new employment as parish priests, while some became secular canons. Others received state pensions of perhaps five or six pounds per annum. There were even cases of small numbers of monks or nuns continuing to live together in religious communities long after the Reformation - their quiet and simple lives being, in many ways, much closer to the monastic ideal than had been the case prior to the Dissolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A wristwatch? Well spotted. That and "Father Pole" already this series.

----- Original Message -----
From: ebatesparrot
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2


--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Stanley,
>
> Very good point. By contrast, the ITV mini-series with Ray Winstone was totally Henry-centred but I think it was Shakespeare-based. For history, we may as well be watching Carry On, Henry.
>
> Stephen.

Im really enjoying this series. I thought Gerard McSorley played Robert Aske extremely well and movingly. So much so I totally forgive him that he forgot to remove his wristwatch in the scene where he was bidding his wife goodbye to leave for London Lol lol... I found the execution scene, with Gerard's portrayal of Aske's pain so convincing, that I could hardly bear to watch. I had my hand on the lid of my laptop in readiness to slam it shut just in case. However I did see it through...what cruel times they were...

One good thing to come from this series (for me) it has sparked an interest in the Pilgrimage of Grace which I knew hardly anything about. Robert Aske was a courageous, courageous man, no mistake about it. Why has the Catholic Church never canonised him?? And I found myself thinking about this brave man long after the programme had ended...
eileen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: stanleyc.jenkins
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
>
>
> Although nobody is even pretending that this programme bears any resemblance to the history of Tudor England, the minor error that has been identified in connection with the use of the term "father" for a priest is totally insignificant. Much worse, in my view, is the insidious anti-Protestant bias which has permeated the series since its very inception. We have already had a saintly Katherine of Aragon and a whiter-than-white Sir Thomas More; however, we have now reached the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace.
>
> True to form, and contrary to historical evidence, the Pilgrimage of Grace (which was really four distinct uprisings), was portrayed as a purely religious event in which blameless Catholics end up being lynched by the murderous Protestants, while the Dissolution was depicted as a violent attack upon church property in which religious buildings were burned down by the King's men. In reality, the process of Dissolution was conducted with efficiency and surprising humanity (at least for the period).
>
> Many monks found new employment as parish priests, while some became secular canons. Others received state pensions of perhaps five or six pounds per annum. There were even cases of small numbers of monks or nuns continuing to live together in religious communities long after the Reformation - their quiet and simple lives being, in many ways, much closer to the monastic ideal than had been the case prior to the Dissolution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, I would agree that Gerard McSorley made a very good Robert Aske, and he managed the Yorkshire accent quite well. It was a pity, however, that his place of execution looked very much like Kilmainham Gaol - thereby establishing a link (in many minds, my own included), with certain other executions and the demise of other Catholic rebels.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> A wristwatch? Well spotted. That and "Father Pole" already this series.

Stephen

Plus in one scene when Cromwell was sitting at a desk/table Im 99% sure I spotted a radiator behind him ...it was very brief and I thought I maybe had got it wrong ..it was definitely something white and oblong and not very tudoresque ...however when I saw the wristwatch!!....lol lol...

eileen


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ebatesparrot
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 9:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
>
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Stanley,
> >
> > Very good point. By contrast, the ITV mini-series with Ray Winstone was totally Henry-centred but I think it was Shakespeare-based. For history, we may as well be watching Carry On, Henry.
> >
> > Stephen.
>
> Im really enjoying this series. I thought Gerard McSorley played Robert Aske extremely well and movingly. So much so I totally forgive him that he forgot to remove his wristwatch in the scene where he was bidding his wife goodbye to leave for London Lol lol... I found the execution scene, with Gerard's portrayal of Aske's pain so convincing, that I could hardly bear to watch. I had my hand on the lid of my laptop in readiness to slam it shut just in case. However I did see it through...what cruel times they were...
>
> One good thing to come from this series (for me) it has sparked an interest in the Pilgrimage of Grace which I knew hardly anything about. Robert Aske was a courageous, courageous man, no mistake about it. Why has the Catholic Church never canonised him?? And I found myself thinking about this brave man long after the programme had ended...
> eileen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: stanleyc.jenkins
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: Warning: The Tydders are about to return to BBC2
> >
> >
> > Although nobody is even pretending that this programme bears any resemblance to the history of Tudor England, the minor error that has been identified in connection with the use of the term "father" for a priest is totally insignificant. Much worse, in my view, is the insidious anti-Protestant bias which has permeated the series since its very inception. We have already had a saintly Katherine of Aragon and a whiter-than-white Sir Thomas More; however, we have now reached the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace.
> >
> > True to form, and contrary to historical evidence, the Pilgrimage of Grace (which was really four distinct uprisings), was portrayed as a purely religious event in which blameless Catholics end up being lynched by the murderous Protestants, while the Dissolution was depicted as a violent attack upon church property in which religious buildings were burned down by the King's men. In reality, the process of Dissolution was conducted with efficiency and surprising humanity (at least for the period).
> >
> > Many monks found new employment as parish priests, while some became secular canons. Others received state pensions of perhaps five or six pounds per annum. There were even cases of small numbers of monks or nuns continuing to live together in religious communities long after the Reformation - their quiet and simple lives being, in many ways, much closer to the monastic ideal than had been the case prior to the Dissolution.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

i know we are talking about a very different period of time, but it seems kind of off to talk about religious persecution with cheerful words like effeciency and suprising humanity. the series may be biased but it doesn't change the fact that a ruler forced religion as he saw fit onto his people.

angie

Well, up to then, and often since [look at North and Central America
in the 16th century] that is how religion was spread, by rulers with
armies infliciting their beliefs on the lands they wanted that didn't
belong to them. Only Buddha seems to be the exception.
Paul


On 31 Aug 2009, at 17:07, Angie Flanagan wrote:

> i know we are talking about a very different period of time, but it
> seems kind of off to talk about religious persecution with cheerful
> words like effeciency and suprising humanity. the series may be
> biased but it doesn't change the fact that a ruler forced religion
> as he saw fit onto his people.
>
> angie
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet