Richard III in Theatre

Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
Richard as he actually was?
david a sigler

The Brooklyn contingent timidly raises its hand to admit that she has a play about the historical Richard, _Loyalty Lies_, which was produced under the auspices of the Puerto Rican Traveling Theatre a few years ago. Members of the Society saw a version of this at the 2000 AGM, directed by Anne Smith, and featuring Kurt Elftman as Richard, who repeated his wonderful work for me at the PRTT production.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
>From: "david a. sigler" <dasigler@...>
>Sent: Jan 4, 2008 10:27 AM
>To:
>Subject: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
>Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>

Josephine Tey wrote a play called "Dickon" under the name Gordon
Daviot, but I don't know if it ever got produced. I've read it, and
it's not very good!
Paul

On 4 Jan 2008, at 15:27, david a. sigler wrote:

>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
> Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.


Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> ha scritto:
Josephine Tey wrote a play called "Dickon" under the name Gordon
Daviot, but I don't know if it ever got produced. I've read it, and
it's not very good!
Paul

On 4 Jan 2008, at 15:27, david a. sigler wrote:

>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
> Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"




Visit Your Group
Y! Entertainment
World of Star Wars
Rediscover the force.
Explore now.

Yahoo! News
Odd News
You won't believe
it, but it's true

Yahoo! Groups
Wellness Spot
A resource for Curves
and weight loss.



.





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

---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail

I would love to see that play.

Colleen


Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.


Paul Trevor Bale
ha scritto:
Josephine Tey wrote a play called "Dickon" under the name Gordon
Daviot, but I don't know if it ever got produced. I've read it, and
it's not very good!
Paul

On 4 Jan 2008, at 15:27, david a. sigler wrote:

>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
> Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"




Visit Your Group
Y! Entertainment
World of Star Wars
Rediscover the force.
Explore now.

Yahoo! News
Odd News
You won't believe
it, but it's true

Yahoo! Groups
Wellness Spot
A resource for Curves
and weight loss.



.





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

---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail






Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for the info.
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: MsTigerHawk
To:
Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


I would love to see that play.

Colleen


Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.

Paul Trevor Bale
ha scritto:
Josephine Tey wrote a play called "Dickon" under the name Gordon
Daviot, but I don't know if it ever got produced. I've read it, and
it's not very good!
Paul

On 4 Jan 2008, at 15:27, david a. sigler wrote:

>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
> Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Visit Your Group
Y! Entertainment
World of Star Wars
Rediscover the force.
Explore now.

Yahoo! News
Odd News
You won't believe
it, but it's true

Yahoo! Groups
Wellness Spot
A resource for Curves
and weight loss.

..

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

---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston! I'll be there with bells on!

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for the info.
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: MsTigerHawk
To:
Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

I would love to see that play.

Colleen

Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.

Paul Trevor Bale
ha scritto:
Josephine Tey wrote a play called "Dickon" under the name Gordon
Daviot, but I don't know if it ever got produced. I've read it, and
it's not very good!
Paul

On 4 Jan 2008, at 15:27, david a. sigler wrote:

>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
> Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Visit Your Group
Y! Entertainment
World of Star Wars
Rediscover the force.
Explore now.

Yahoo! News
Odd News
You won't believe
it, but it's true

Yahoo! Groups
Wellness Spot
A resource for Curves
and weight loss.

..

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

---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers










---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Hi Cecilia! Happy New Year!

The American Branch under the aegis of Roxane Murph was instrumental
in the publishing of "Richard and Anne" by McFarland

& Co. in 1995.

She worked closely with the Anderson family to do this.

It is a well -annotated volume and Roxane's introduction gives lots of
Ricardian background.

I don't think it's been produced on stage - maybe some local productions.
It was originally turned down for production by

The Playwright's Company, to which Anderson belonged. This lead to his
leaving the group..

I believe copies of the book are available from the American Branch
Sales Office. That is where I got my copy.



L.M.L.,

Janet

Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.


----- Original Message -----
From: norma vieweg
To:
Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston! I'll be there with bells on!

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for the info.
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: MsTigerHawk
To:
Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

I would love to see that play.

Colleen

Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.

Paul Trevor Bale
ha scritto:
Josephine Tey wrote a play called "Dickon" under the name Gordon
Daviot, but I don't know if it ever got produced. I've read it, and
it's not very good!
Paul

On 4 Jan 2008, at 15:27, david a. sigler wrote:

>
> Dumb question, maybe. Has there ever been a play that portays
> Richard as he actually was?
> david a sigler
>>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Visit Your Group
Y! Entertainment
World of Star Wars
Rediscover the force.
Explore now.

Yahoo! News
Odd News
You won't believe
it, but it's true

Yahoo! Groups
Wellness Spot
A resource for Curves
and weight loss.

..

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

---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers





---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.

Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.

lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.








---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick <johngarrick8@...> wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.








---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick <johngarrick8@...> wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: john garrick
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick <johngarrick8@...> wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.










---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

I think you mean Bosworth, or is the Scottish muse taking part? :-)
Paul



On 8 Jan 2008, at 01:32, David Sigler wrote:

> I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about
> Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before
> the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an
> idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
>
>
>
> david a sigler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john garrick
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!
>
> John
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
> Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find
> her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least
> people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that
> other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: johngarrick8
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
> not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
> Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
> there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
> enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
> Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
> one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
> to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.
>
> John
>
> --- In , "David Sigler"
> <dasigler@...> wrote:
>>
>> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: norma vieweg
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>>
>> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
> I'll be there with bells on!
>>
>> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
> have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
> the info.
>> david a sigler
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MsTigerHawk
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>> I would love to see that play.
>>
>> Colleen
>>
>> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
>> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
> Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
> during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
> version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
> the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
> introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
>> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
> from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Yes, I am a quarter Scot anyway; was born in Suffolk after all , that part must have wee bit taken over. Scottish Muse? Of course she did. And the fact that Richards ghost visited me last night and corrected me as well.
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: 1/8/2008 5:35:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


I think you mean Bosworth, or is the Scottish muse taking part? :-)
Paul

On 8 Jan 2008, at 01:32, David Sigler wrote:

> I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about
> Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before
> the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an
> idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
>
>
>
> david a sigler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john garrick
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!
>
> John
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
> Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find
> her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least
> people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that
> other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: johngarrick8
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
> not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
> Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
> there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
> enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
> Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
> one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
> to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.
>
> John
>
> --- In , "David Sigler"
> <dasigler@...> wrote:
>>
>> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: norma vieweg
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>>
>> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
> I'll be there with bells on!
>>
>> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
> have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
> the info.
>> david a sigler
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MsTigerHawk
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>> I would love to see that play.
>>
>> Colleen
>>
>> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
>> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
> Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
> during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
> version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
> the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
> introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
>> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
> from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Better Bosworth than Boswell, and better Bosworth Field than Potter's Field. LOL.

Colleen


Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
I think you mean Bosworth, or is the Scottish muse taking part? :-)
Paul



On 8 Jan 2008, at 01:32, David Sigler wrote:

> I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about
> Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before
> the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an
> idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
>
>
>
> david a sigler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john garrick
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!
>
> John
>
> David Sigler wrote:
> Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find
> her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least
> people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that
> other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: johngarrick8
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
> not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
> Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
> there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
> enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
> Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
> one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
> to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.
>
> John
>
> --- In , "David Sigler"
> wrote:
>>
>> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: norma vieweg
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>>
>> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
> I'll be there with bells on!
>>
>> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
> have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
> the info.
>> david a sigler
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MsTigerHawk
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>> I would love to see that play.
>>
>> Colleen
>>
>> Cecilia Latella wrote:
>> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
> Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
> during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
> version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
> the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
> introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
>> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
> from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"






Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

Ok, ok, I got it, I spelled it wrong, so behead me.:) Maybe I was thinking Roswell and wrote something else....but the idea is still in my brain. What do you really think he was thinking right before the Battle of BOSWORTH!!!!!!!. As for the Potter's Field, hmmm, there's an idea....
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: MsTigerHawk
To:
Sent: 1/8/2008 7:32:45 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


Better Bosworth than Boswell, and better Bosworth Field than Potter's Field. LOL.

Colleen


Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
I think you mean Bosworth, or is the Scottish muse taking part? :-)
Paul

On 8 Jan 2008, at 01:32, David Sigler wrote:

> I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about
> Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before
> the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an
> idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
>
>
>
> david a sigler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john garrick
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!
>
> John
>
> David Sigler wrote:
> Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find
> her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least
> people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that
> other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: johngarrick8
> To:
> Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
> not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
> Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
> there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
> enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
> Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
> one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
> to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.
>
> John
>
> --- In , "David Sigler"
> wrote:
>>
>> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: norma vieweg
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>>
>> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
> I'll be there with bells on!
>>
>> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
> have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
> the info.
>> david a sigler
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: MsTigerHawk
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>> I would love to see that play.
>>
>> Colleen
>>
>> Cecilia Latella wrote:
>> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
> Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
> during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
> version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
> the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
> introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
>> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
> from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

Margaret Beaufort is a definite suspect. More so than her husband, and a little more so than her son.

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.










---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.






Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

of all the things margaret did, i do not believe she killed the princes. that dishonour belongs to henry stafford, duke of buckingham. she may have played a role in spurring him on to doing it. but there are at least five sources that imply or outright state he did it. and the deed was done before he connected with her as she was off to visit "our lady" of worcester in august 1483.

margaret manipulated eliz woodville into agreeing to allow eliz of york to marry her son shortly after this event. why would woodville agree to her daughter marrying h7 to make him king, if the princes were still alive?

woodville wasn't as intelligent as margaret, but she was just as grasping and greedy.

richard himself declares his innocence at the time of the january 1484 parliament according to holinshed's chronicle. buckingham's widow goes on to align herself with the tudor faction after buckingham's death, and her coming out of sanctuary with woodville, her sister. catherine eventually married jasper tudor, h7's uncle.

richard's reputation was blackened by tudor propaganda. margaret and morton certainly played a role in this slander.

what i'm turning up by reading the older sources of info is:

george duke of clarence killed and/or betrayed edward son of h6 on the battlefield.
lord scales aka rivers killed h6.
richard had nothing to do with clarence's conviction/death. but buckingham did.
buckingham killed the princes.

i know there are more allegations against richard, i just can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

and..i'm so frustrated right now with this blasted sciatica and associated painkillers. i can't sit for any great length of time. nor can i focus on and retain info i'm reading. therefore, my research is on hold but:

this has resulted in my wondering if old h8, who suffered a serious fall while jousting during his reign..if part of his nasty temper was caused by sciatic pain.
because i'm certainly not my (ahem) cheery self.
i'm also left wondering..geez what did they do for people like me during that era.

roslyn



norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick <johngarrick8@...> wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

First of all, I'm sorry to hear about your sciatica pain, my BF just had a shot in his back for the same pain and it helped none, he's still on pain meds to. (he drives a tractor trailor and is on temp. leave due to meds and he is also a pro drummer, both not good for back pain, so his life to is on hold) I myself am on pain meds due to crohns disease that is active at the moment and find it hard to remember alot of what I read, so I hope you feel better soon.
I can't remember where I read this but I read that Richard lll had the Princes moved to Middleham Castle shortly after he arrived in London, and after the battle of Bosworth and Richards death that it's believed that someone from Jaspers household (using his badge as identification) that they took the Princes from Middleham never to be seen again.

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
of all the things margaret did, i do not believe she killed the princes. that dishonour belongs to henry stafford, duke of buckingham. she may have played a role in spurring him on to doing it. but there are at least five sources that imply or outright state he did it. and the deed was done before he connected with her as she was off to visit "our lady" of worcester in august 1483.

margaret manipulated eliz woodville into agreeing to allow eliz of york to marry her son shortly after this event. why would woodville agree to her daughter marrying h7 to make him king, if the princes were still alive?

woodville wasn't as intelligent as margaret, but she was just as grasping and greedy.

richard himself declares his innocence at the time of the january 1484 parliament according to holinshed's chronicle. buckingham's widow goes on to align herself with the tudor faction after buckingham's death, and her coming out of sanctuary with woodville, her sister. catherine eventually married jasper tudor, h7's uncle.

richard's reputation was blackened by tudor propaganda. margaret and morton certainly played a role in this slander.

what i'm turning up by reading the older sources of info is:

george duke of clarence killed and/or betrayed edward son of h6 on the battlefield.
lord scales aka rivers killed h6.
richard had nothing to do with clarence's conviction/death. but buckingham did.
buckingham killed the princes.

i know there are more allegations against richard, i just can't remember them off the top of my head right now.

and..i'm so frustrated right now with this blasted sciatica and associated painkillers. i can't sit for any great length of time. nor can i focus on and retain info i'm reading. therefore, my research is on hold but:

this has resulted in my wondering if old h8, who suffered a serious fall while jousting during his reign..if part of his nasty temper was caused by sciatic pain.
because i'm certainly not my (ahem) cheery self.
i'm also left wondering..geez what did they do for people like me during that era.

roslyn



norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick <johngarrick8@...> wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler <dasigler@...> wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella <cabepfir@...> wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.










---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I am a quarter Scot anyway; was born in Suffolk after all ,
that part must have wee bit taken over. Scottish Muse? Of course she
did. And the fact that Richards ghost visited me last night and
corrected me as well.



Next time he drops by, ask him if he knows what became of those pesky
boys. And where the fateful battle was actually fought, while you're
at it.

Katy

Dr. Johnson, I presume ?

Richard G

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything
> about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?

I pondered appraoching the subject but he was looking rather annoyed with the whole thing as he noticed my library with Shakespeare on the shelf; I dropped the subject as we discussed other things...like the failure of Henry VII's reign and his son, Henry VIII. He said he might return if I start writing a short play about him....to make sure facts this time are set on paper.
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: oregonkaty
To:
Sent: 1/8/2008 11:36:04 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I am a quarter Scot anyway; was born in Suffolk after all ,
that part must have wee bit taken over. Scottish Muse? Of course she
did. And the fact that Richards ghost visited me last night and
corrected me as well.

Next time he drops by, ask him if he knows what became of those pesky
boys. And where the fateful battle was actually fought, while you're
at it.

Katy

Nay, Sir, Nay.


----- Original Message -----
From: rgcorris
To:
Sent: 1/8/2008 11:40:50 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


Dr. Johnson, I presume ?

Richard G

--- In , "David Sigler"
<dasigler@...> wrote:
>
> At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything
> about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?

If indeed Margaret had anything to do with their deaths, I'm sure it was by way of planting seeds in others ears, to do her bidding without having been told to do it. A sly fox she was.

MsTigerHawk <tigerhawksoars@...> wrote: Margaret Beaufort is a definite suspect. More so than her husband, and a little more so than her son.

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers











---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Sure, just like Henry II saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?".

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
If indeed Margaret had anything to do with their deaths, I'm sure it was by way of planting seeds in others ears, to do her bidding without having been told to do it. A sly fox she was.

MsTigerHawk wrote: Margaret Beaufort is a definite suspect. More so than her husband, and a little more so than her son.

Colleen


norma vieweg wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers











---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.






Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

beaufort would not have been as public with her wishes. she was more clandestine. those who did her bidding took the fall. she walked away clean from her dirty work.

it be interesting to find out when dr. caerleon became her dr. was it before or after he became woodville's?

roslyn

MsTigerHawk <tigerhawksoars@...> wrote:
Sure, just like Henry II saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?".

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
If indeed Margaret had anything to do with their deaths, I'm sure it was by way of planting seeds in others ears, to do her bidding without having been told to do it. A sly fox she was.

MsTigerHawk wrote: Margaret Beaufort is a definite suspect. More so than her husband, and a little more so than her son.

Colleen

norma vieweg wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

That's what I ment about Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth 1 was just as sly as she was, like in the way Elizabeth went about having MQS executed and making it look as if she did not order it.

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: beaufort would not have been as public with her wishes. she was more clandestine. those who did her bidding took the fall. she walked away clean from her dirty work.

it be interesting to find out when dr. caerleon became her dr. was it before or after he became woodville's?

roslyn

MsTigerHawk <tigerhawksoars@...> wrote:
Sure, just like Henry II saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?".

Colleen

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
If indeed Margaret had anything to do with their deaths, I'm sure it was by way of planting seeds in others ears, to do her bidding without having been told to do it. A sly fox she was.

MsTigerHawk wrote: Margaret Beaufort is a definite suspect. More so than her husband, and a little more so than her son.

Colleen

norma vieweg wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected, manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman. do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret Beaufort?

john garrick wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers










---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually had Mary
beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one of her
officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
Le
----- Original Message -----
From: "norma vieweg" <luckycharm6139@...>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Change of Topic:Margaret
Beaufort


That's what I ment about Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth 1 was just as sly as
she was, like in the way Elizabeth went about having MQS executed and making
it look as if she did not order it.

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: beaufort would not have been
as public with her wishes. she was more clandestine. those who did her
bidding took the fall. she walked away clean from her dirty work.

it be interesting to find out when dr. caerleon became her dr. was it before
or after he became woodville's?

roslyn

MsTigerHawk <tigerhawksoars@...> wrote:
Sure, just like Henry II saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome
priest?".

Colleen

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
If indeed Margaret had anything to do with their deaths, I'm sure it was by
way of planting seeds in others ears, to do her bidding without having been
told to do it. A sly fox she was.

MsTigerHawk wrote: Margaret Beaufort is a definite suspect. More so than her
husband, and a little more so than her son.

Colleen

norma vieweg wrote:
Knowing now about Margaret Beaufort, do you think she was involved with the
murder of the Princes? Or he husband? Or son?

fayre rose wrote: maggie was a highly intelligent, well connected,
manipulative power hungry control freak. she was a true machavellian woman.
do what it takes to survive and eradicate your enemies by force or slander.
hold your friends near, and your enemies closer.
and...most importantly above all else appear pious and demure when
necessary. she knew "who" she was, and how to survive.
roslyn

norma vieweg wrote:
I was wondering what others think of Henry Vlls mother Lady Margaret
Beaufort?

john garrick wrote: lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!

John

David Sigler wrote:
Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find her
myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least people
remember Richard III play than remember anything about that other guy at
Boswell; what was his name again?
david a sigler

----- Original Message -----
From: johngarrick8
To:
Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre

What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.

John

--- In , "David Sigler"
wrote:
>
> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: norma vieweg
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
I'll be there with bells on!
>
> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
the info.
> david a sigler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
> I would love to see that play.
>
> Colleen
>
> Cecilia Latella wrote:
> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.



---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.





---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers



---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers










---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.






Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , norma vieweg
<luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
>
> That's what I ment about Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth 1 was just as
sly as she was, like in the way Elizabeth went about having MQS
executed and making it look as if she did not order it.


I don't have references at hand, but as I recall, Eliz I tried to have
Mary Queen of Scots executed on her verbal order, but the man the duty
fell to refused to do so without written orders, and eventually got them.

("Verbal orders" is a phrase that bugs me. It is supposed to mean
"oral orders" but it actually means "orders in words" -- what else,
telepathy?)

Katy

--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
had Mary
> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one
of her
> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.



I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
Mary Stewart's death.

Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
Elizabeth for the throne of England.

Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?

Katy

well some of us go through life with blinders on and others don't. I fall into the catagory where I certainly do not wear blinders.

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote: --- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
had Mary
> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one
of her
> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.

I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
Mary Stewart's death.

Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
Elizabeth for the throne of England.

Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?

Katy






---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> of all the things margaret did, i do not believe she killed the
princes. that dishonour belongs to henry stafford, duke of buckingham.



There is also the possibility that no one killed the "princes"
(actually a duke and an uncrowned king) -- possibly they, or one of
them, died in a mishap involving an attempt to rescue them from the
Tower, or to recapture them from the erstwhile rescuers.

If a faction did try to get them away from Richard's custody, and the
attempt led to the death of one or both boys, I wouldn't expect the
perpetrators to make any announcement about a botched job.

Katy

It seems that we will never know for sure, unless someone comes up with a time machine.

Colleen


oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , fayre rose
wrote:
>
> of all the things margaret did, i do not believe she killed the
princes. that dishonour belongs to henry stafford, duke of buckingham.



There is also the possibility that no one killed the "princes"
(actually a duke and an uncrowned king) -- possibly they, or one of
them, died in a mishap involving an attempt to rescue them from the
Tower, or to recapture them from the erstwhile rescuers.

If a faction did try to get them away from Richard's custody, and the
attempt led to the death of one or both boys, I wouldn't expect the
perpetrators to make any announcement about a botched job.

Katy




Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

Elizabeth I never wore blinders. She always knew exactly what was going on except when it came to Robert Dudley.

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
well some of us go through life with blinders on and others don't. I fall into the catagory where I certainly do not wear blinders.

oregonkaty wrote: --- In , "Le Bateman"
wrote:
>
> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
had Mary
> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one
of her
> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.

I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
Mary Stewart's death.

Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
Elizabeth for the throne of England.

Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?

Katy






---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.






Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

--- In , MsTigerHawk
<tigerhawksoars@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that we will never know for sure, unless someone comes up
with a time machine.


Documents turn up from time to time in unlikely places. You never
know....

Katy

katy wrote
Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
===
a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she was involved with the details remains up for debate.

roslyn

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "Le Bateman"
<LeBateman@...> wrote:
>
> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
had Mary
> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one
of her
> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.

I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
Mary Stewart's death.

Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
Elizabeth for the throne of England.

Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?

Katy

Potter's Field? Sorry David but Cadfael got there before you!
Roswell? Well even I admit to watching that!!!!:-)
Paul


On 8 Jan 2008, at 13:40, David Sigler wrote:

> Ok, ok, I got it, I spelled it wrong, so behead me.:) Maybe I
> was thinking Roswell and wrote something else....but the idea is
> still in my brain. What do you really think he was thinking right
> before the Battle of BOSWORTH!!!!!!!. As for the Potter's Field,
> hmmm, there's an idea....
>
>
> david a sigler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/8/2008 7:32:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> Better Bosworth than Boswell, and better Bosworth Field than
> Potter's Field. LOL.
>
> Colleen
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
> I think you mean Bosworth, or is the Scottish muse taking part? :-)
> Paul
>
> On 8 Jan 2008, at 01:32, David Sigler wrote:
>
>> I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about
>> Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before
>> the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an
>> idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
>>
>>
>>
>> david a sigler
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: john garrick
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>>
>> lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!
>>
>> John
>>
>> David Sigler wrote:
>> Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find
>> her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least
>> people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that
>> other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
>> david a sigler
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: johngarrick8
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>> What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
>> not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
>> Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
>> there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
>> enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
>> Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
>> one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
>> to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --- In , "David Sigler"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: norma vieweg
>>> To:
>>> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>>
>>>
>>> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
>> I'll be there with bells on!
>>>
>>> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
>> have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
>> the info.
>>> david a sigler
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: MsTigerHawk
>>> To:
>>> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>>
>>> I would love to see that play.
>>>
>>> Colleen
>>>
>>> Cecilia Latella wrote:
>>> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
>> Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
>> during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
>> version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
>> the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
>> introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
>>> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
>> from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> *************************************************************
> http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Cadfael? Can we leave the 12th century fellow out of my troubles! :-). It's a good thing I read Ellis Peters. I wasn't thinking of the tv show Roswell but the points the same. The more I read about Richard the more I like the guy.
david a sigler


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: 1/9/2008 4:45:15 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre


Potter's Field? Sorry David but Cadfael got there before you!
Roswell? Well even I admit to watching that!!!!:-)
Paul

On 8 Jan 2008, at 13:40, David Sigler wrote:

> Ok, ok, I got it, I spelled it wrong, so behead me.:) Maybe I
> was thinking Roswell and wrote something else....but the idea is
> still in my brain. What do you really think he was thinking right
> before the Battle of BOSWORTH!!!!!!!. As for the Potter's Field,
> hmmm, there's an idea....
>
>
> david a sigler
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: MsTigerHawk
> To:
> Sent: 1/8/2008 7:32:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>
>
> Better Bosworth than Boswell, and better Bosworth Field than
> Potter's Field. LOL.
>
> Colleen
>
>
> Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
> I think you mean Bosworth, or is the Scottish muse taking part? :-)
> Paul
>
> On 8 Jan 2008, at 01:32, David Sigler wrote:
>
>> I wonder if I could write a short twenty minute or so play about
>> Richard III. Call it "Boswell." As it will take place right before
>> the battle as he contemplates his life and role as king. Just an
>> idea. And I almost promise to not quote you, John.
>>
>>
>>
>> david a sigler
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: john garrick
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/7/2008 1:38:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>>
>> lol --- One of the Henry`s I think, but don`t quote me!
>>
>> John
>>
>> David Sigler wrote:
>> Hmmmmmm, don't tempt me. Led me not into temptation as I can find
>> her myself. To write a play or not, that is the question? At least
>> people remember Richard III play than remember anything about that
>> other guy at Boswell; what was his name again?
>> david a sigler
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: johngarrick8
>> To:
>> Sent: 1/7/2008 5:07:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>
>> What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays
>> not being produced very often? The quality perhaps?
>> Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years? Or are
>> there other reasons? It surely can`t be lack of public
>> enthusiasm about the man himself. Why hasn`t the
>> Richard III Society itself taken up the task of writing
>> one? There must be enough talent among it`s membership
>> to do so! And enough clout worldwide to get it shown.
>>
>> John
>>
>> --- In , "David Sigler"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Be b=nice if it came to St. paul, Minnesota.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: norma vieweg
>>> To:
>>> Sent: 1/6/2008 7:04:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>>
>>>
>>> I to think this most interesting. I hope the play comes to Boston!
>> I'll be there with bells on!
>>>
>>> David Sigler wrote: Hey Cecilia, and Colleen, I will
>> have to see if I can find this play; sounds interesting. Thanks for
>> the info.
>>> david a sigler
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: MsTigerHawk
>>> To:
>>> Sent: 1/6/2008 3:41:53 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard III in Theatre
>>>
>>> I would love to see that play.
>>>
>>> Colleen
>>>
>>> Cecilia Latella wrote:
>>> There is a wonderful play by Maxwell Anderson entitled "Richard and
>> Anne", in which the ghost of the historical Richard appears on stage
>> during a performance of Shakespeare's RIII and begins to tell his own
>> version of the story. "Richard and Anne" was staged a few times in
>> the '50s, if I remember well, and it has been published with an
>> introduction by Rosanne Murphy.
>>> Dickon by Josephine Tey was staged - I remember reading comments
>> from Olivier and Gielgud after the performance.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> *************************************************************
> http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Sorry, I was not referring to Elizabeth l in that post. I was referring to Le Bateman

MsTigerHawk <tigerhawksoars@...> wrote: Elizabeth I never wore blinders. She always knew exactly what was going on except when it came to Robert Dudley.

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
well some of us go through life with blinders on and others don't. I fall into the catagory where I certainly do not wear blinders.

oregonkaty wrote: --- In , "Le Bateman"
wrote:
>
> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
had Mary
> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one
of her
> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.

I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
Mary Stewart's death.

Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
Elizabeth for the throne of England.

Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?

Katy

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers











---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
in England.

How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
cronies.

Richard G

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> katy wrote
> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
> ===
> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>
> roslyn
>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "Le
Bateman"
> <LeBateman@> wrote:
> >
> > One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
> had Mary
> > beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> > involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
one
> of her
> > officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
physically.
> > Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>
> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
> Mary Stewart's death.
>
> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>
> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Colleen


norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
Sorry, I was not referring to Elizabeth l in that post. I was referring to Le Bateman

MsTigerHawk wrote: Elizabeth I never wore blinders. She always knew exactly what was going on except when it came to Robert Dudley.

Colleen


norma vieweg wrote:
well some of us go through life with blinders on and others don't. I fall into the catagory where I certainly do not wear blinders.

oregonkaty wrote: --- In , "Le Bateman"
wrote:
>
> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
had Mary
> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by one
of her
> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it physically.
> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.

I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
Mary Stewart's death.

Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
Elizabeth for the throne of England.

Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?

Katy

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.



Yahoo! Groups Links

*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers











---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.






Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

Interesting that after Mary the next Catholic heir was Ferdinando
Stanley, the grandson of William Stanley, the man who betrayed
Richard at Bosworth.
Paul


On 9 Jan 2008, at 17:30, rgcorris wrote:

> At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
> her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
> intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
> in England.
>
> How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
> known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
> Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
> ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
> cronies.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> katy wrote
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>> ===
>> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
> is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
> think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
> the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
> was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
>> <LeBateman@> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
>> had Mary
>>> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
>>> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
> one
>> of her
>>> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
> physically.
>>> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>>
>> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
>> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
>> Mary Stewart's death.
>>
>> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
>> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
>> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>>
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

As you know, Paul, post-Bosworth genealogy is my thing and I photocopied two pages of Claire Cross' "Huntingdon" book. I shall consult these tomorrow.

Presumably, you mean heirs to Elizabeth i.e. given the Tydder's accession by conquest. It will not always be obvious who was a Catholic and who was not.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Mary Stuart (Change of Topic:Margaret Beaufort)


Interesting that after Mary the next Catholic heir was Ferdinando
Stanley, the grandson of William Stanley, the man who betrayed
Richard at Bosworth.
Paul

On 9 Jan 2008, at 17:30, rgcorris wrote:

> At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
> her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
> intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
> in England.
>
> How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
> known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
> Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
> ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
> cronies.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> katy wrote
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>> ===
>> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
> is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
> think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
> the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
> was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
>> <LeBateman@> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
>> had Mary
>>> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
>>> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
> one
>> of her
>>> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
> physically.
>>> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>>
>> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
>> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
>> Mary Stewart's death.
>>
>> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
>> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
>> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>>
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I really do need to learn how to do my geneology Stephan, it would be wonderful to learn who my ancesotry was!

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote: As you know, Paul, post-Bosworth genealogy is my thing and I photocopied two pages of Claire Cross' "Huntingdon" book. I shall consult these tomorrow.

Presumably, you mean heirs to Elizabeth i.e. given the Tydder's accession by conquest. It will not always be obvious who was a Catholic and who was not.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Mary Stuart (Change of Topic:Margaret Beaufort)

Interesting that after Mary the next Catholic heir was Ferdinando
Stanley, the grandson of William Stanley, the man who betrayed
Richard at Bosworth.
Paul

On 9 Jan 2008, at 17:30, rgcorris wrote:

> At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
> her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
> intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
> in England.
>
> How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
> known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
> Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
> ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
> cronies.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> katy wrote
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>> ===
>> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
> is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
> think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
> the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
> was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
>> <LeBateman@> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
>> had Mary
>>> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
>>> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
> one
>> of her
>>> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
> physically.
>>> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>>
>> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
>> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
>> Mary Stewart's death.
>>
>> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
>> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
>> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>>
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"








---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

I have Bosworth ancestry. I descend from Jabin Bosworth, whose grandfather married into a Mayflower family.

Colleen


Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
As you know, Paul, post-Bosworth genealogy is my thing and I photocopied two pages of Claire Cross' "Huntingdon" book. I shall consult these tomorrow.

Presumably, you mean heirs to Elizabeth i.e. given the Tydder's accession by conquest. It will not always be obvious who was a Catholic and who was not.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Mary Stuart (Change of Topic:Margaret Beaufort)


Interesting that after Mary the next Catholic heir was Ferdinando
Stanley, the grandson of William Stanley, the man who betrayed
Richard at Bosworth.
Paul

On 9 Jan 2008, at 17:30, rgcorris wrote:

> At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
> her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
> intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
> in England.
>
> How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
> known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
> Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
> ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
> cronies.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> wrote:
>>
>> katy wrote
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>> ===
>> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
> is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
> think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
> the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
> was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> oregonkaty wrote:
>> --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
>> had Mary
>>> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
>>> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
> one
>> of her
>>> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
> physically.
>>> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>>
>> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
>> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
>> Mary Stewart's death.
>>
>> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
>> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
>> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>>
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"











Yahoo! Groups Links






*************************************************************
http://groups.Yahoo.com/group/Humorous_Heppers

norma and anyone else who wants to start researching.
visit www.rootsweb.com and www.familysearch.org

and play on those pages..check out the links etc. you'll get loads of tips etc.

start with your known ancestors, i.e. grandparents

join rootsweb maillists for your surnames you are researching AND join for locations you are researching.

at the familysearch.org you can find where the nearest (latter day saints)lds and their (family history center) fhc are located. visit these centers. they lds/morons WILL NOT push their religion on you. you can attend free workshops.

also contact your local museum or library and ask if they have a family history society/group in your area. there are loads of people who are very, very willing to assist you in your research.

i've been at this seriously for more than a decade. you'll make loads of contacts on line who will assist you. you'll also meet some real (several not polite words) who will taunt and torment you.

use your delete button for those types. don't be shy about asking for help on the rootsweb lists. make sure you thank those who do help you.

good luck and good hunting.

roslyn

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
I really do need to learn how to do my geneology Stephan, it would be wonderful to learn who my ancesotry was!

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote: As you know, Paul, post-Bosworth genealogy is my thing and I photocopied two pages of Claire Cross' "Huntingdon" book. I shall consult these tomorrow.

Presumably, you mean heirs to Elizabeth i.e. given the Tydder's accession by conquest. It will not always be obvious who was a Catholic and who was not.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Mary Stuart (Change of Topic:Margaret Beaufort)

Interesting that after Mary the next Catholic heir was Ferdinando
Stanley, the grandson of William Stanley, the man who betrayed
Richard at Bosworth.
Paul

On 9 Jan 2008, at 17:30, rgcorris wrote:

> At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
> her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
> intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
> in England.
>
> How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
> known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
> Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
> ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
> cronies.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> katy wrote
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>> ===
>> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
> is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
> think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
> the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
> was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
>> <LeBateman@> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
>> had Mary
>>> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
>>> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
> one
>> of her
>>> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
> physically.
>>> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>>
>> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
>> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
>> Mary Stewart's death.
>>
>> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
>> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
>> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>>
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"



---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

A Big Thank You for all of the helpfull information you have given to me.

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote: norma and anyone else who wants to start researching.
visit www.rootsweb.com and www.familysearch.org

and play on those pages..check out the links etc. you'll get loads of tips etc.

start with your known ancestors, i.e. grandparents

join rootsweb maillists for your surnames you are researching AND join for locations you are researching.

at the familysearch.org you can find where the nearest (latter day saints)lds and their (family history center) fhc are located. visit these centers. they lds/morons WILL NOT push their religion on you. you can attend free workshops.

also contact your local museum or library and ask if they have a family history society/group in your area. there are loads of people who are very, very willing to assist you in your research.

i've been at this seriously for more than a decade. you'll make loads of contacts on line who will assist you. you'll also meet some real (several not polite words) who will taunt and torment you.

use your delete button for those types. don't be shy about asking for help on the rootsweb lists. make sure you thank those who do help you.

good luck and good hunting.

roslyn

norma vieweg <luckycharm6139@...> wrote:
I really do need to learn how to do my geneology Stephan, it would be wonderful to learn who my ancesotry was!

Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote: As you know, Paul, post-Bosworth genealogy is my thing and I photocopied two pages of Claire Cross' "Huntingdon" book. I shall consult these tomorrow.

Presumably, you mean heirs to Elizabeth i.e. given the Tydder's accession by conquest. It will not always be obvious who was a Catholic and who was not.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Mary Stuart (Change of Topic:Margaret Beaufort)

Interesting that after Mary the next Catholic heir was Ferdinando
Stanley, the grandson of William Stanley, the man who betrayed
Richard at Bosworth.
Paul

On 9 Jan 2008, at 17:30, rgcorris wrote:

> At the end of the day, if Mary Q of S had managed to retain power in
> her own country, she would not have been as vulnerable to the
> intriguing of the various conspirators, both Catholic and Protestant,
> in England.
>
> How much the case against her was a put-up job will probably never be
> known, but she was certainly a serious threat to Elizabeth and the
> Protestant settlement in England. At least Elizabeth and/or her
> ministers did the deed in the open, unlike her grandfather and his
> cronies.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> katy wrote
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>> ===
>> a similiar scenario happened to r3. HOWEVER, the big difference
> is richard busted buckingham. elizabeth busted no one, and i don't
> think she was shy about using her power. ergo, elizabeth knew about
> the execution and condoned it by her silence/inaction. how much she
> was involved with the details remains up for debate.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> --- In , "Le
> Bateman"
>> <LeBateman@> wrote:
>>>
>>> One of Elizabeth's officials concocted the plot that eventually
>> had Mary
>>> beheaded. Please show me the evidence that points to Elizabeth's
>>> involvement. in the plot of 1567. The plot was prefabricated by
> one
>> of her
>>> officials. I have come across no evidence linking her to it
> physically.
>>> Elizabeth is related to me, and I will not besmirch her memory.
>>
>> I'm related to her, too, and so are at least 1000,000 other living
>> people, but I don't think even family loyalty can exculpate her from
>> Mary Stewart's death.
>>
>> Mary was framed for the murder of Darnley, almost certainly, but
>> mostly she died for being a potential rival to the aging childless
>> Elizabeth for the throne of England.
>>
>> Do you actually think any group of conspirators could engineer the
>> execution of an annointed queen (of two countries) who was in
>> Elizabeth's custody, without Elizabeth's knowledge and permission?
>>
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"



---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.










---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

From: Sandi du Plessis
Date 12 January 2008

Just a thought, Shakespeare wrote plays about many kings, but no-where can I
find one about Henry Tydder. Now can anyone think of why he should take all
the time to write about Elizabeth's great grandfather, and father, but miss
out on the grandfather ? Maybe the truth would have not been very
politically correct, or he just wasn't interesting enough ?

Or maybe Elizabeth was aware of the truth with regard to her grandfather ?

Back to lurking mode !

Sandi

Re: Shakespeare and Henry Tudor:



Maybe it was a case of "if you can't say something nice about a person,
don't say anything at all"



L.M.L.,

Janet