The Real King of England ?

Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if Edward
IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged. (I don't know if this
has been shown before but if so I missed it.) Anyway, it followed the
line of Clarence's descendants through the Hastings family to the
current claimant (not that he knew that was what he was before Baldric
and his camera crew turned up on his doorstep), an English former
public schoolboy living in Australia who had voted for Australia to
become a republic.

Although mildly interesting, it missed out the fairly important point
that if the Plantagenet-Hastings family had actually occupied the
throne over the years, they would have undoubtedly made dynastic
marriages not dissimilar to those made by the actual incumbents, so
that the bloodline of the present monarch might not have been too much
changed anyway.

Indeed, if that had been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?

Richard G

>Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
>Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if Edward
>IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if that had been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
>Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
>
>Richard G

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

Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period of time at which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:

If it were very early on, he would likely have never become king to begin with; George would have been too young to be much more than a pawn, likely Henry + Margaret of Anjou would have continued ruling with fewer headaches after the killing of Richard Duke of York and Edmund. If so, then perhaps Margaret might have engineered some kind of connection with Louis over France-ward as time went on, and history might have taken a weird turn here and there. On the other hand, if Edward Lancaster had survived (and he seemed healthy enough), he would likely have succeeded Henry VI, possibly sooner than expected if Henry's mental state deteriorated. If Eddie L. were truly as bellicose as rumor has it, then he might have picked up the war in France, and more interesting things, not necessarily constructive for anyone, might have ensued. I might hazard a helping hand from Aragon, as Juan II of Aragon, and afterward son Fernando, had a bone or two to pick with Louis.

If the illegitimacy were recognized after Edward's coronation but before Warwick's defeat, George would have been in a better position to establish his independence. Life would depend on how well he would handle being in power: it's possible that Warwick might have been better able to control this brother than Edward. George might still have married Isabel Neville, or he might have reached overseas. Warwick's interests indicate there might have been some kind of rapprochement with France; on the other hand Margaret of Anjou would be a considerable factor, and George/Warwick might have lost out anyway, and the Lancasters might have come back again (beholden to France which, hmm...).. And, then, I can't see Edward IV taking any of this lying down, and he could be pretty crafty too, when he was of a mind to be, so there might have been some very creative intrigue running around. Richard might have been in an interesting position himself in this scenario.

If the question came into serious question after Henry VI was dead and gone, and so was Warwick, I say George would have had a legit. claim, but depending on his character and the situation, might have had a harder time keeping hold of things than he would have of gaining the claim -- Again, I can't see Edward slinking off into the sunset. Henry Tudor would still be a factor; so would Morton and Maggie Beaufort. If George proved weak enough, a door would be open to them. If he were able to hold his own, then his little Edward would be next in line, and he and Margaret would be the ones contracting marriages, with the Tudors out of the picture (George having married I. Neville before this, his children wouldn't have differed). Probably a lot of George's stability would depend on Richard, so it would behoove George to play nicely with him. Assuming Richard continued to make his main base in the North, and that Anne also stayed North, it's not impossible that she might have survived longer, in part, because, perhaps, Richard and Anne's little Edward might possibly have survived with his mother nearer to hand, and the stresses being less on the family, or at least more familiar. All this might have meant a better and more profitable future for Richard adn his little clan -- assuming he and George cooperated.

Very rushed from work,

Maria
elena@...

At 16:17 30/11/2007, you wrote:
> >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
> >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if Edward
> >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if that had
> been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> >
> >Richard G
>
>=======================
>
>Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period of time at
>which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:

On the other hand, there is a presumption in English law that a woman's
husband is the father of any children. Do we know of anyone significant in
the C15 disclaimed by their apparent father?

And Edward won the throne by conquest, like Henry VII, whose paternal line
quickly reaches obscure Welshmen.

I saw the programme when it was first on - some time ago, now - and
wouldn't have watched it again even if I'd noticed it was happening.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree by Carole
Cadwalladr
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
> Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if
Edward
> IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged. (I don't know if
this
> has been shown before but if so I missed it.) Anyway, it followed
the
> line of Clarence's descendants through the Hastings family to the
> current claimant (not that he knew that was what he was before
Baldric
> and his camera crew turned up on his doorstep), an English former
> public schoolboy living in Australia who had voted for Australia to
> become a republic.
>
> Although mildly interesting, it missed out the fairly important
point
> that if the Plantagenet-Hastings family had actually occupied the
> throne over the years, they would have undoubtedly made dynastic
> marriages not dissimilar to those made by the actual incumbents, so
> that the bloodline of the present monarch might not have been too
much
> changed anyway.
>
> Indeed, if that had been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
>
> Richard G
>
Richard, you remember me saying in summer that Richard III was
descended from Ethelred II Unraed (twice), Malcolm III Canmore,
Llewellyn Fawr and Brian Boru - i.e. a full set of famous British
leaders?
If Jones were right about his Hypothesis, our Richard would be unique
in this respect as the Canmore, Llewellyn and Boru (and Ethelred
through Edmund Ironside) would depend upon the Duke of York, meaning
that Edward IV, Edward V, the Tydders and their successors would only
pass through Ethelred's daughter, Elgyva.

I think I would take as a thesis for debate that Edward's bastardy was
proclaimed in 1483 after his death as one of the reasons for setting
aside Edward V, perhaps confirmed by Cicely, and therefore difficult
for Tudor to reject in the way he did the pre-contract. After Bosworth
that would leave Clarence's children as the blood-heirs. I suspect
then that Warwick might have quietly disappeared and Tudor would have
married his sister.

Richard G

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>
> >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
> >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if Edward
> >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if that
had been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> >
> >Richard G
>
> =======================
>
> Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period of
time at which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:
>
> If it were very early on, he would likely have never become king to
begin with; George would have been too young to be much more than a
pawn, likely Henry + Margaret of Anjou would have continued ruling
with fewer headaches after the killing of Richard Duke of York and
Edmund. If so, then perhaps Margaret might have engineered some kind
of connection with Louis over France-ward as time went on, and history
might have taken a weird turn here and there. On the other hand, if
Edward Lancaster had survived (and he seemed healthy enough), he would
likely have succeeded Henry VI, possibly sooner than expected if
Henry's mental state deteriorated. If Eddie L. were truly as
bellicose as rumor has it, then he might have picked up the war in
France, and more interesting things, not necessarily constructive for
anyone, might have ensued. I might hazard a helping hand from Aragon,
as Juan II of Aragon, and afterward son Fernando, had a bone or two to
pick with Louis.
>
> If the illegitimacy were recognized after Edward's coronation but
before Warwick's defeat, George would have been in a better position
to establish his independence. Life would depend on how well he would
handle being in power: it's possible that Warwick might have been
better able to control this brother than Edward. George might still
have married Isabel Neville, or he might have reached overseas.
Warwick's interests indicate there might have been some kind of
rapprochement with France; on the other hand Margaret of Anjou would
be a considerable factor, and George/Warwick might have lost out
anyway, and the Lancasters might have come back again (beholden to
France which, hmm...).. And, then, I can't see Edward IV taking any of
this lying down, and he could be pretty crafty too, when he was of a
mind to be, so there might have been some very creative intrigue
running around. Richard might have been in an interesting position
himself in this scenario.
>
> If the question came into serious question after Henry VI was dead
and gone, and so was Warwick, I say George would have had a legit.
claim, but depending on his character and the situation, might have
had a harder time keeping hold of things than he would have of gaining
the claim -- Again, I can't see Edward slinking off into the sunset.
Henry Tudor would still be a factor; so would Morton and Maggie
Beaufort. If George proved weak enough, a door would be open to them.
If he were able to hold his own, then his little Edward would be next
in line, and he and Margaret would be the ones contracting marriages,
with the Tudors out of the picture (George having married I. Neville
before this, his children wouldn't have differed). Probably a lot of
George's stability would depend on Richard, so it would behoove George
to play nicely with him. Assuming Richard continued to make his main
base in the North, and that Anne also stayed North, it's not
impossible that she might have survived longer, in part, because,
perhaps, Richard and Anne's little Edward might possibly have survived
with his mother nearer to hand, and the stresses being less on the
family, or at least more familiar. All this might have meant a better
and more profitable future for Richard adn his little clan -- assuming
he and George cooperated.
>
> Very rushed from work,
>
> Maria
> elena@...
>

charles the dauphin of france ala jeanne d'arc fame. if i correctly recall was considered illegit by his father..or at least his mother claimed that charles's father was not her husband, the king.

the more i research this era..the more it is becoming evident that this was pretty much a free love type society. history teaches us of virtuous maidens, and chivalrous knights..but the evidence, especially if you get into primary source or contemporary chronicles/documents all give indications of a different story.

there are loads and loads of illegit children. many of the higher ranking clergy had mistresses/concubines and illegit children.

i just read that e4 and r3's sister margaret of burgundy was even considered as being the bio mother of perkin warbeck via an affair with a cardinal or bishop. sorry, i'm not recalling his name. but, this cardinal was also involved with negotiating or something with h7.

wish i could be clearer at this time. but i didn't have pen and paper at the hospital, so i don't have notes...just a kind of memory of reading said tidbit.

i do know i read this in halstead. vol 1

roslyn

Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
At 16:17 30/11/2007, you wrote:
> >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
> >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if Edward
> >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if that had
> been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> >
> >Richard G
>
>=======================
>
>Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period of time at
>which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:

On the other hand, there is a presumption in English law that a woman's
husband is the father of any children. Do we know of anyone significant in
the C15 disclaimed by their apparent father?

And Edward won the throne by conquest, like Henry VII, whose paternal line
quickly reaches obscure Welshmen.

I saw the programme when it was first on - some time ago, now - and
wouldn't have watched it again even if I'd noticed it was happening.

Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree by Carole
Cadwalladr
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

At 00:07 09/12/2007, you wrote:
>charles the dauphin of france ala jeanne d'arc fame. if i correctly recall
>was considered illegit by his father..or at least his mother claimed that
>charles's father was not her husband, the king.

I rather think this makes my point. Despite being disclaimed by his father,
he was still dauphin.

Perhaps I should have put it better - 'shoved out of the nest'?

Best wishes
Christine

>
> Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
> At 16:17 30/11/2007, you wrote:
> > >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
> > >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if Edward
> > >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if that had
> > been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> > >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> > >
> > >Richard G
> >
> >=======================
> >
> >Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period of time at
> >which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:
>
>On the other hand, there is a presumption in English law that a woman's
>husband is the father of any children. Do we know of anyone significant in
>the C15 disclaimed by their apparent father?
>
>And Edward won the throne by conquest, like Henry VII, whose paternal line
>quickly reaches obscure Welshmen.
>
>I saw the programme when it was first on - some time ago, now - and
>wouldn't have watched it again even if I'd noticed it was happening.
>
>Best wishes
>Christine
>
>Christine Headley
>Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree by Carole
>Cadwalladr
>Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 2711 (20071207) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset.com

Well, this declaration of Charles' status had an intimate relationship
with the Treaty of Troyes, wherein Charles' sister, Catherine, was
betrothed to Henry V, with the understanding that succession rights to
France would go to Henry and his progeny (an interesting hat trick in
any case, since the French royal succession could only succeed through
the male line, but, well.). Charles would have had to be discredited in
order for this agreement to have any value at all, and his mother's
reputation as an unfaithful wife went before her, so this maneuver was
necessary, not difficult, and not necessarily true - if you look at
Valois portraits, you'll see that Charles had plenty of Valois physical
traits.

Charles, incidentally, came into his position by default: he had four
older brothers, all of whom died young, and all of the sons gone the
year 1417 (Charles was 16 when the title of dauphin settled on him).
Several of the daughters in the family died young, too. I think Charles
VI and Isabeau had twelve children of whom four or five made it to
adulthood.

Maria
Elena@...

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Christine H
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 8:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: The Real King of England ?

At 00:07 09/12/2007, you wrote:
>charles the dauphin of france ala jeanne d'arc fame. if i correctly
recall
>was considered illegit by his father..or at least his mother claimed
that
>charles's father was not her husband, the king.

I rather think this makes my point. Despite being disclaimed by his
father,
he was still dauphin.

Perhaps I should have put it better - 'shoved out of the nest'?

Best wishes
Christine

>
> Christine H <christinelheadley@
<mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> At 16:17 30/11/2007, you wrote:
> > >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by Tony "Baldric"
> > >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if
Edward
> > >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if that
had
> > been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> > >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> > >
> > >Richard G
> >
> >=======================
> >
> >Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period of
time at
> >which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:
>
>On the other hand, there is a presumption in English law that a woman's
>husband is the father of any children. Do we know of anyone significant
in
>the C15 disclaimed by their apparent father?
>
>And Edward won the throne by conquest, like Henry VII, whose paternal
line
>quickly reaches obscure Welshmen.
>
>I saw the programme when it was first on - some time ago, now - and
>wouldn't have watched it again even if I'd noticed it was happening.
>
>Best wishes
>Christine
>
>Christine Headley
>Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree by
Carole
>Cadwalladr
>Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 2711 (20071207) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>http://www.eset <http://www.eset.com> com

Two possible follow up shows:

The real King of Scotland?
The present monarchy is only on the throne as Protestant heirs of
the Stuarts, but if Prince Charles intends to abandon the Protestant
supremacy to become "Defender of all the Faiths" then is there
someone (presumably a Catholic) with a better hereditary claim than
his House of Saxe Coberg Gotha?

The real Duke of Lancaster?
As I've mentioned in a previous thread, Henry Tudor's claim to be
hereditary Duke of Lancaster, with it's vast estates in England and
Wales, was false. The real heirs are the descendents of Henry IV's
sisters of the whole blood, who married into the Portuguese Royal
line and the Hollands respectively. The Holland line was passed to
the Nevilles of Westmoreland, and I believe there is someone using
this as a basis to claim the Duchy from the Queen. I forget the
name (still a Neville?) but he regularly gets thrown out of police
stations for advancing his claim.

--- In , Maria <ejbronte@...>
wrote:
>
> Well, this declaration of Charles' status had an intimate
relationship
> with the Treaty of Troyes, wherein Charles' sister, Catherine, was
> betrothed to Henry V, with the understanding that succession
rights to
> France would go to Henry and his progeny (an interesting hat trick
in
> any case, since the French royal succession could only succeed
through
> the male line, but, well.). Charles would have had to be
discredited in
> order for this agreement to have any value at all, and his mother's
> reputation as an unfaithful wife went before her, so this maneuver
was
> necessary, not difficult, and not necessarily true - if you look at
> Valois portraits, you'll see that Charles had plenty of Valois
physical
> traits.
>
> Charles, incidentally, came into his position by default: he had
four
> older brothers, all of whom died young, and all of the sons gone
the
> year 1417 (Charles was 16 when the title of dauphin settled on
him).
> Several of the daughters in the family died young, too. I think
Charles
> VI and Isabeau had twelve children of whom four or five made it to
> adulthood.
>
> Maria
> Elena@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
Christine H
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 8:43 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Real King of England ?
>
> At 00:07 09/12/2007, you wrote:
> >charles the dauphin of france ala jeanne d'arc fame. if i
correctly
> recall
> >was considered illegit by his father..or at least his mother
claimed
> that
> >charles's father was not her husband, the king.
>
> I rather think this makes my point. Despite being disclaimed by his
> father,
> he was still dauphin.
>
> Perhaps I should have put it better - 'shoved out of the nest'?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> >
> > Christine H <christinelheadley@
> <mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > At 16:17 30/11/2007, you wrote:
> > > >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by
Tony "Baldric"
> > > >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if
> Edward
> > > >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if
that
> had
> > > been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> > > >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> > > >
> > > >Richard G
> > >
> > >=======================
> > >
> > >Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period
of
> time at
> > >which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:
> >
> >On the other hand, there is a presumption in English law that a
woman's
> >husband is the father of any children. Do we know of anyone
significant
> in
> >the C15 disclaimed by their apparent father?
> >
> >And Edward won the throne by conquest, like Henry VII, whose
paternal
> line
> >quickly reaches obscure Welshmen.
> >
> >I saw the programme when it was first on - some time ago, now -
and
> >wouldn't have watched it again even if I'd noticed it was
happening.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >Christine
> >
> >Christine Headley
> >Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family Tree
by
> Carole
> >Cadwalladr
> >Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________ NOD32 2711 (20071207) Information __________
> >
> >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> >http://www.eset <http://www.eset.com> com
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Two possible follow up shows:
>
> The real King of Scotland?
> The present monarchy is only on the throne as Protestant heirs of
> the Stuarts, but if Prince Charles intends to abandon the
Protestant
> supremacy to become "Defender of all the Faiths" then is there
> someone (presumably a Catholic) with a better hereditary claim than
> his House of Saxe Coberg Gotha?
>
> The real Duke of Lancaster?
> As I've mentioned in a previous thread, Henry Tudor's claim to be
> hereditary Duke of Lancaster, with it's vast estates in England and
> Wales, was false. The real heirs are the descendents of Henry IV's
> sisters of the whole blood, who married into the Portuguese Royal
> line and the Hollands respectively. The Holland line was passed to
> the Nevilles of Westmoreland, and I believe there is someone using
> this as a basis to claim the Duchy from the Queen. I forget the
> name (still a Neville?) but he regularly gets thrown out of police
> stations for advancing his claim.
>
The answers as I recall:

i) The senior descendant of James VII/II is given as:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00468427&tree=LEO

ii) The Portugese royal line are the answer, I believe, and are still
alive after 97 years of exile. I could not trace much past 1700 on
van der Pas.

> --- In , Maria <ejbronte@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, this declaration of Charles' status had an intimate
> relationship
> > with the Treaty of Troyes, wherein Charles' sister, Catherine, was
> > betrothed to Henry V, with the understanding that succession
> rights to
> > France would go to Henry and his progeny (an interesting hat
trick
> in
> > any case, since the French royal succession could only succeed
> through
> > the male line, but, well.). Charles would have had to be
> discredited in
> > order for this agreement to have any value at all, and his
mother's
> > reputation as an unfaithful wife went before her, so this
maneuver
> was
> > necessary, not difficult, and not necessarily true - if you look
at
> > Valois portraits, you'll see that Charles had plenty of Valois
> physical
> > traits.
> >
> > Charles, incidentally, came into his position by default: he had
> four
> > older brothers, all of whom died young, and all of the sons gone
> the
> > year 1417 (Charles was 16 when the title of dauphin settled on
> him).
> > Several of the daughters in the family died young, too. I think
> Charles
> > VI and Isabeau had twelve children of whom four or five made it to
> > adulthood.
> >
> > Maria
> > Elena@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> Christine H
> > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 8:43 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The Real King of
England ?
> >
> > At 00:07 09/12/2007, you wrote:
> > >charles the dauphin of france ala jeanne d'arc fame. if i
> correctly
> > recall
> > >was considered illegit by his father..or at least his mother
> claimed
> > that
> > >charles's father was not her husband, the king.
> >
> > I rather think this makes my point. Despite being disclaimed by
his
> > father,
> > he was still dauphin.
> >
> > Perhaps I should have put it better - 'shoved out of the nest'?
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Christine
> >
> > >
> > > Christine H <christinelheadley@
> > <mailto:christinelheadley%40yahoo.co.uk> yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > At 16:17 30/11/2007, you wrote:
> > > > >Last night Channel 4 TV ran a programme presented by
> Tony "Baldric"
> > > > >Robinson on what the royal line of England would have been if
> > Edward
> > > > >IV's suspected bastardy had been acknowledged ... Indeed, if
> that
> > had
> > > > been the case, would Henry Tudor have married
> > > > >Clarence's daughter rather than Edward's ?
> > > > >
> > > > >Richard G
> > > >
> > > >=======================
> > > >
> > > >Interesting question. I think a lot would depend on the period
> of
> > time at
> > > >which Edward would have been acknowledged at illegitimate:
> > >
> > >On the other hand, there is a presumption in English law that a
> woman's
> > >husband is the father of any children. Do we know of anyone
> significant
> > in
> > >the C15 disclaimed by their apparent father?
> > >
> > >And Edward won the throne by conquest, like Henry VII, whose
> paternal
> > line
> > >quickly reaches obscure Welshmen.
> > >
> > >I saw the programme when it was first on - some time ago, now -
> and
> > >wouldn't have watched it again even if I'd noticed it was
> happening.
> > >
> > >Best wishes
> > >Christine
> > >
> > >Christine Headley
> > >Listowner, Virtual Book Group - December choice - The Family
Tree
> by
> > Carole
> > >Cadwalladr
> > >Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >__________ NOD32 2711 (20071207) Information __________
> > >
> > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > >http://www.eset <http://www.eset.com> com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>