I got the name of Stephen Moyer's role in True Blood wrong--should have
written Bill Compton. Anyway, here's a short bio of him on IMBD
<http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0610459/bio>  . At 5'10" he's a little
taller than I imagine Richard was (I pictured him around 5'8"), but
that's a lot closer than the over 6' heights of other named actors.
Besides, he's an actor with an impressive vita.

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "oregonkaty"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, Florence Dove mdove9@
wrote:
> >
> > Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
> > reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
> > he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
> > which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
> > muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In
repose
> > his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
> > mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance,  Has anyone else
> > noticed this ad?
>
>
> I have, I enjoy it, and now that you mention it, he would make a very
good Richard III.  Especially with a red rinse on his hair.
>
> His name ia Andy Azula.  He's a creative director at the ad agency
that created the commercial.
>
>
http://atlanta.daybooknetwork.com/story/2009/04/03/18854andy-azula-event\
.shtml
>
> I bet he'd be interested in knowing that he resembles Richard III.
>
> Katy
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
> reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
> he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
> which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
> muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
> his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
> mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance,  Has anyone else
> noticed this ad?


I have, I enjoy it, and now that you mention it, he would make a very good
Richard III.  Especially with a red rinse on his hair.

His name ia Andy Azula.  He's a creative director at the ad agency that created
the commercial.

http://atlanta.daybooknetwork.com/story/2009/04/03/18854andy-azula-event.shtml

I bet he'd be interested in knowing that he resembles Richard III.

Katy

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
wrote:
>
> Both Keanu (who I love) and Richard Armitage (who I don't) would be
> disastrous! Both are far too tall, and far too old, and Mr Armitage
> in particular at times looks like Olivier in THAT film!
> We must all remember in telling Richard's story properly his age
> range is 16 through to 32. In thinking of casting for Richard, people
> must remember this if the story is going to be told accurately.



Ah, yes.  I recall some movie (one of the Shakespeare plays, I believe) which
featured a grizzled, time-worn Edward IV, newly crowned.

In actually, he was 18 years old.

Katy

Roslyn, Thank you for your suggestions. I would like to see my book do
modestly well before I start seriously dreaming about having it made
into a movie or mini-series. I agree with Paul that Reeves would be too
tall and old for an actor to play Richard. Paul, what you're probably
not aware of is that I bring Richard into This Time seconds before he
was killed in battle--so my Richard starts at his death age--32. Other's
have told me that my book seems like it would translate well to film and
I think the actor who would make a perfect Richard is Stephen Moyer--he
plays the vampire Bill Campbell on True Blood. Also, I don't think
Richard would have had what we know of today as an English accent.
Here's what I said about his accent in my ending notes:


"Richard's accent: Early Modern English emerged right around the
time Richard III was born (October 2, 1452) and was spoken up to 1650 or
so, when the more recognizable Modern English became the vernacular. In
the fifteenth century, English was probably spoken the way they spelled
the words. This was before dictionaries codified spelling, so the
spelling was often phonetic. The dialect in certain isolated pockets of
Appalachia is thought to be as close to sixteenth century English as we
can hear today."




I built my idea of how he'd speak from these references:


McGee, Timothy J., Rigg, A. G. and Klausner, David N., eds., Singing
Early Music: The Pronunciation of European Languages in the Late Middle
Ages and Renaissance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Audio files from The American Front Porch Digital Library
<http://ils.unc.edu/afporch/audio/audio.html#>





For anyone interested, you can go to my website
<http://www.joanszechtman.com/>   and click on excerpt to read the first
chapter.




Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/



--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Both Keanu (who I love) and Richard Armitage (who I don't) would be
> disastrous! Both are far too tall, and far too old, and Mr Armitage
> in particular at times looks like Olivier in THAT film!
> We must all remember in telling Richard's story properly his age
> range is 16 through to 32. In thinking of casting for Richard, people
> must remember this if the story is going to be told accurately.
> Paul
> (whose script is currently going the rounds and yes I have very
> specific ideas for casting Richard and many other characters, but I'm
> keeping them to myself for obvious reasons!)
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 Dec 2009, at 12:04, Melanie Mayze wrote:
>
> > Keanu... how funny, when i read this i instantly remembered the
> > movie "Bill and Ted's excellent Adventure" (I was a 90's teen) and
> > imagined R3 using words like "Awesome" and "Dude!". Keanu would be
> > very interesting, i know he played Hamlet very well, but his accent
> > can be very distracting and he has trouble shaking it.
> >
> > I still like Richard Armitage for a possible Richard III. But I
> > don't think it would be possible to reach a consensus on this
> > issue, we all have such different visions of what Richard was like.
> >
> > In any case a R3 movie would be a lot of fun to see :)
> >
> > Melanie
> >
> >> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a
> >> portrayal. plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the
> >> movie on more than a "b" list budget.
> >>
> >> here's his contact info.
> >> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
> >>
> >> roslyn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard liveth yet
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Both Keanu (who I love) and Richard Armitage (who I don't) would be
disastrous! Both are far too tall, and far too old, and Mr Armitage
in particular at times looks like Olivier in THAT film!
We must all remember in telling Richard's story properly his age
range is 16 through to 32. In thinking of casting for Richard, people
must remember this if the story is going to be told accurately.
Paul
(whose script is currently going the rounds and yes I have very
specific ideas for casting Richard and many other characters, but I'm
keeping them to myself for obvious reasons!)





On 9 Dec 2009, at 12:04, Melanie Mayze wrote:

> Keanu... how funny, when i read this i instantly remembered the
> movie "Bill and Ted's excellent Adventure" (I was a 90's teen) and
> imagined R3 using words like "Awesome" and "Dude!". Keanu would be
> very interesting, i know he played Hamlet very well, but his accent
> can be very distracting and he has trouble shaking it.
>
> I still like Richard Armitage for a possible Richard III. But I
> don't think it would be possible to reach a consensus on this
> issue, we all have such different visions of what Richard was like.
>
> In any case a R3 movie would be a lot of fun to see :)
>
> Melanie
>
>> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a
>> portrayal. plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the
>> movie on more than a "b" list budget.
>>
>> here's his contact info.
>> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
>>
>> roslyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Wow! How right you are!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florence Dove" <mdove9@...>
To: <richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period


> Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
> reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
> he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
> which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
> muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
> his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
> mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance,  Has anyone else
> noticed this ad?
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:58 PM, fayre rose wrote:
>
>>
>> interesting. i also was not aware you had written a sci-fi/
>> historical fiction story about richard.
>>
>> from the outline/reviews of your book "this time"; i think it would
>> make for great entertainment as a movie. if handled properly, it
>> would be an excellent tool to educate the masses with regards to the
>> shakespearian mythology.
>>
>> have you any offerings in the wings? the assorted r3 societies
>> should get behind you and push for it to be made. there is a
>> audience in waiting, and with the right cast, director a possible
>> block buster, like "knight's tale".
>>
>> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a portrayal.
>> plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the movie on more than
>> a "b" list budget.
>>
>> here's his contact info.
>> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
>>
>> roslyn
>> --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Joan <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Joan <r3_Joansz@...>
>> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
>> To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
>> Received: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:42 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
>> <http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/2009/ 09/review- of-richard- iii-and-
>> murder- in.\
>> html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.
>>
>> Joan
>> ---
>> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
>> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
>> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>>
>> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
>> <bisudagan@. ..> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank You, I'll look there also.
>> >
>> > Stefano
>> >
>> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Stefano,
>> > > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August
>> 2009
>> issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
>> Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and
>> the
>> Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
>> death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
>> who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
>> family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
>> with his lord, William Hastings.... who kept the secret even after
>> Edward
>> 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
>> marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
>> Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless
>> willing to
>> have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: Abikapi2
>> > > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
>> > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
>> > > Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi, Marie
>> > >
>> > > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
>> any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
>> Glouchester/ Richard.
>> > >
>> > > Stefano
>> > >
>> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
>> <bisudagan@> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
>> we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stefano
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
>> say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly.
>> I'm
>> afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
>> times.
>> > > >
>> > > > Marie
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
>> mariewalsh2003
>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You mean 'exhausting' .
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
>> <bisudagan@> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Stefano
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
>> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
>> "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
>> 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
>> location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
>> miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
>> Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
>> mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry
>> was on
>> foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
>> > > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
>> defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
>> > > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
>> > > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Thank you
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Stefano
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
>> if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
>> there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
>> where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
>> > > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
>> Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors
>> to be
>> unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it
>> up;
>> > > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
>> on the basis that:-
>> > > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
>> burials in Dadlington church
>> > > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
>> 'Dadlington Field'
>> > > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
>> Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
>> Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
>> that he had been.
>> > > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
>> Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
>> compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
>> "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
>> old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
>> sentence of which is, in translation: -
>> > > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
>> us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
>> archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
>> Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
>> finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
>> the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation
>> grant.
>> > > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
>> fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
>> did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between
>> the
>> three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where
>> the
>> shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km
>> mentioned?),
>> in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
>> site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Marie
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Somehow the young actor in the current crop of UPS TV commercials
reminds me of the portraits of Richard. The young man in these ads-
he stands in front of a white board and draws various UPS symbols
which then become animated- has longish dark hair, a smaller but
muscular build, straight nose, and somewhat sharp features. In repose
his face is average, but it lights up when he smiles. That brings to
mind some of the comments on Richard's appearance,  Has anyone else
noticed this ad?


On Dec 8, 2009, at 2:58 PM, fayre rose wrote:

>
> interesting. i also was not aware you had written a sci-fi/
> historical fiction story about richard.
>
> from the outline/reviews of your book "this time"; i think it would
> make for great entertainment as a movie. if handled properly, it
> would be an excellent tool to educate the masses with regards to the
> shakespearian mythology.
>
> have you any offerings in the wings? the assorted r3 societies
> should get behind you and push for it to be made. there is a
> audience in waiting, and with the right cast, director a possible
> block buster, like "knight's tale".
>
> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a portrayal.
> plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the movie on more than
> a "b" list budget.
>
> here's his contact info.
> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
>
> roslyn
> --- On Mon, 12/7/09, Joan <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> From: Joan <r3_Joansz@...>
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
> To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:42 PM
>
>
>
> IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
> <http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/2009/ 09/review- of-richard- iii-and-
> murder- in.\
> html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
> website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
> <bisudagan@. ..> wrote:
> >
> > Thank You, I'll look there also.
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Stefano,
> > > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August
> 2009
> issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
> Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and
> the
> Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
> death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
> who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
> family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
> with his lord, William Hastings.... who kept the secret even after
> Edward
> 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
> marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
> Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless
> willing to
> have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Abikapi2
> > > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> > > Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Marie
> > >
> > > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
> any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
> Glouchester/ Richard.
> > >
> > > Stefano
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
> <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
> we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> > > > >
> > > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
> say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly.
> I'm
> afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
> times.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean 'exhausting' .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
> <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
> "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
> 2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
> location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
> miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
> Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
> mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry
> was on
> foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
> defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
> if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
> there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
> where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
> Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors
> to be
> unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it
> up;
> > > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
> on the basis that:-
> > > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
> burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
> 'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
> Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
> Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
> that he had been.
> > > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
> Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
> compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
> "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
> old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
> sentence of which is, in translation: -
> > > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
> us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
> archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
> Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
> finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
> the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation
> grant.
> > > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
> fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
> did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between
> the
> three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where
> the
> shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km
> mentioned?),
> in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
> site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keanu... how funny, when i read this i instantly remembered the movie "Bill and
Ted's excellent Adventure" (I was a 90's teen) and imagined R3 using words like
"Awesome" and "Dude!". Keanu would be very interesting, i know he played Hamlet
very well, but his accent can be very distracting and he has trouble shaking it.

I still like Richard Armitage for a possible Richard III. But I don't think it
would be possible to reach a consensus on this issue, we all have such different
visions of what Richard was like.

In any case a R3 movie would be a lot of fun to see :)

Melanie
 
> i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a
> portrayal. plus he has the backing and funding to "make" the
> movie on more than a "b" list budget.
>  
> here's his contact info.
> http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
>  
> roslyn

interesting. i also was not aware you had written a sci-fi/historical fiction
story about richard.
 
from the outline/reviews of your book "this time"; i think it would make for
great entertainment as a movie. if handled properly, it would be an excellent
tool to educate the masses with regards to the shakespearian mythology.
 
have you any offerings in the wings? the assorted r3 societies should get behind
you and push for it to be made. there is a audience in waiting, and with the
right cast, director a possible block buster, like "knight's tale".
 
i think keanu reeves would do richard total justice in a portrayal. plus he has
the backing and funding to "make" the movie on more than a "b" list budget.
 
here's his contact info.
http://famous-relationships.topsynergy.com/Keanu_Reeves/Contact.asp
 
roslyn
--- On Mon, 12/7/09, Joan <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:


From: Joan <r3_Joansz@...>
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
Received: Monday, December 7, 2009, 5:42 PM


 



IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
<http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/2009/ 09/review- of-richard- iii-and-murder- in.\
html> and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493- 0-1
website: http://www.joanszec htman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa. blogspot. com/

--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@. ..> wrote:
>
> Thank You, I'll look there also.
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
wrote:
> >
> > Stefano,
> > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009
issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and the
Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
with his lord, William Hastings.... who kept the secret even after Edward
4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to
have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Abikapi2
> > To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> > Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi, Marie
> >
> > Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
Glouchester/ Richard.
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > >
> > > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm
afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
times.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean 'exhausting' .
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com,
"Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on
foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stefano
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be
unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
on the basis that:-
> > > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
burials in Dadlington church
> > > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
'Dadlington Field'
> > > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
that he had been.
> > > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
"at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
sentence of which is, in translation: -
> > > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> > > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the
three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the
shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?),
in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

IMO, this book is well worth reading. I reviewed it on my blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/2009/09/review-of-richard-iii-and-murder-in.\
html>   and on Amazon.com (US site). It really makes one think.

Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
> Thank You, I'll look there also.
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Sally Keil" skeil@
wrote:
> >
> > Stefano,
> > This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009
issue of The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III
Foundation, there was a review of the book entitled Richard III and the
Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter Hancock, the murder referring to the
death of Hastings, not the princes. He speculates that William Catesby
who had a known and provable relationship with Eleanor Talbot and her
family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared) this secret
with his lord, William Hastings....who kept the secret even after Edward
4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that
Hastings knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to
have him sit on the throne instead of Richard.
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Abikapi2
> >   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
> >   Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
> >
> >
> >
> >   Hi, Marie
> >
> >   Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have
any idea of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by
Glouchester/Richard.
> >
> >   Stefano
> >
> >   --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> >   > >
> >   > >
> >   > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian
we say "esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> >   > >
> >   > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> >   > >
> >   > > Stefano
> >   >
> >   > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed
say 'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm
afraid it was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at
times.
> >   >
> >   > Marie
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> >   > > >
> >   > > > You mean 'exhausting'.
> >   > > >
> >   > > >
> >   > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
> >   > > > >
> >   > > > >
> >   > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> >   > > > >
> >   > > > > Stefano
> >   > > > >
> >   > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com,
mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com,
"Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >   > > > > > >
> >   > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June
2009 ppgg 16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the
location of Bosworth battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two
miles south-west of the old site, and also explain his version of
Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on Horseback but on foot,
mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor service, Henry was on
foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> >   > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's
defeat, and Percy is here greatly revised.
> >   > > > > > > Has someone red it?
> >   > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> >   > > > > > >
> >   > > > > > > Thank you
> >   > > > > > >
> >   > > > > > > Stefano
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me
if I'm reiterating what you already know, but the background is that
there have in recent years been differences of opinion about exactly
where the battle was fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> >   > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the
Battlefield Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be
unsuitable, and not having any really early documentation to back it up;
> >   > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington,
on the basis that:-
> >   > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield
burials in Dadlington church
> >   > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
'Dadlington Field'
> >   > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in
Redemore in the fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John
Sponor, returning to York from the battle, told the York City Council
that he had been.
> >   > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone,
Mancetter, Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid
compensation to these places for damage to crops caused by his troops
"at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who also dug out an
old reference to the letter from the French solider. The pertinent
sentence of which is, in translation:-
> >   > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of
us, and in part we were the reason why the battle was won."
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and
Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation grant area) is that their
finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes immediately to
the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation grant.
> >   > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather
fruitless, but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig
did strike gold. I think it's rather nice that the find lies between the
three disputed sites, and I am very keen to learn just exactly where the
shot was found. It sounds like quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?),
in which case it will leave a lot about the boundaries of the battle
site, and the story of the battle, still open for debate.
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > > Marie
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > > > >
> >   > > > > >
> >   > > > >
> >   > > >
> >   > >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thank You, I'll look there also.

Stefano

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Sally Keil" <skeil@...> wrote:
>
> Stefano,
> This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009 issue of
The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III Foundation, there was a
review of the book entitled Richard III and the Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter
Hancock, the murder referring to the death of Hastings, not the princes. He
speculates that William Catesby who had a known and provable relationship with
Eleanor Talbot and her family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared)
this secret with his lord, William Hastings....who kept the secret even after
Edward 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that Hastings
knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to have him sit on
the throne instead of Richard.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Abikapi2
>   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
>   Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period
>
>
>
>   Hi, Marie
>
>   Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have any idea
of the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by Glouchester/Richard.
>
>   Stefano
>
>   --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say
"esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
>   > >
>   > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
>   > >
>   > > Stefano
>   >
>   > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say
'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it
was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.
>   >
>   > Marie
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > You mean 'exhausting'.
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Stefano
>   > > > >
>   > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg
16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth
battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old
site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that
was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
>   > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and
Percy is here greatly revised.
>   > > > > > > Has someone red it?
>   > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > Thank you
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > Stefano
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm
reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in
recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was
fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
>   > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield
Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not
having any really early documentation to back it up;
>   > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the
basis that:-
>   > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in
Dadlington church
>   > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle
'Dadlington Field'
>   > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the
fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York
from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
>   > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter,
Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places
for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was
Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French
solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
>   > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in
part we were the reason why the battle was won."
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the
archaeological team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites,
but not the compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington,
but between the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the
area of the compensation grant.
>   > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless,
but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I
think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and
I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like
quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot
about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open
for debate.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Marie
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Stefano,
This is not Marie, but I have a response for you. In the August 2009 issue of
The Medelai Gazette, the publication of The Richard III Foundation, there was a
review of the book entitled Richard III and the Murder in the Tower by Dr Peter
Hancock, the murder referring to the death of Hastings, not the princes. He
speculates that William Catesby who had a known and provable relationship with
Eleanor Talbot and her family, knew of the marriage and either told (or shared)
this secret with his lord, William Hastings....who kept the secret even after
Edward 4 died. Theoretically Catesby is the one who told Richard 3 of the
marriage before Stillington, enraging Richard because it meant that Hastings
knew that Edward 5 was a bastard and was nonetheless willing to have him sit on
the throne instead of Richard.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Abikapi2
   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 2:46 PM
   Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Curiosity about this period



   Hi, Marie

   Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have any idea of
the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by Glouchester/Richard.

   Stefano

   --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
   >
   >
   >
   > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
   > >
   > >
   > > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say
"esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
   > >
   > > Sorry for the misunderstanding
   > >
   > > Stefano
   >
   > No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say
'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it
was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.
   >
   > Marie
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
   > > >
   > > > You mean 'exhausting'.
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
   > > > >
   > > > > Stefano
   > > > >
   > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2"
<bisudagan@> wrote:
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg
16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth
battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old
site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that
was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
   > > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and
Percy is here greatly revised.
   > > > > > > Has someone red it?
   > > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Thank you
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Stefano
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm
reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in
recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was
fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
   > > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield
Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not
having any really early documentation to back it up;
   > > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis
that:-
   > > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in
Dadlington church
   > > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington
Field'
   > > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the
fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York
from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
   > > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter,
Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places
for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was
Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French
solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
   > > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in
part we were the reason why the battle was won."
   > > > > >
   > > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological
team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the
compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between
the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the
compensation grant.
   > > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless,
but I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold. I
think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and
I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like
quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot
about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open
for debate.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Marie
   > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > >
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, Marie

Looking at Your huge knowledge about Richard's kingdom do You have any idea of
the reason of the very quick elimination of Hastings by Glouchester/Richard.

Stefano

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say
"esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
> >
> > Sorry for the misunderstanding
> >
> > Stefano
>
> No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say
'exhaustive' in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it
was my idea of a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > You mean 'exhausting'.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg
16-22" an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth
battle near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old
site, and also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that
was on Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy
is here greatly revised.
> > > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stefano
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm
reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in
recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was
fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield
Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not
having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis
that:-
> > > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in
Dadlington church
> > > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington
Field'
> > > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the
fields of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York
from the battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter,
Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places
for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was
Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French
solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part
we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > > >
> > > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological
team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the
compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between
the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the
compensation grant.
> > > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but
I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold.  I
think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and
I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like
quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot
about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open
for debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
>
> No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say
"esaustivo" to say "thet clear all doubt".
>
> Sorry for the misunderstanding
>
> Stefano

No, it's me that should be apologising, Stephano - we do indeed say 'exhaustive'
in that same sense, and I understood you perfectly. I'm afraid it was my idea of
a joke - I know I can be a bit long-winded at times.

Marie




> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> >
> > You mean 'exhausting'.
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> > >
> > > Stefano
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22"
an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle
near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and
also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on
Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy
is here greatly revised.
> > > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > >
> > > > > Stefano
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm
reiterating what you already know, but the background is that there have in
recent years been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was
fought, the three best-known contenders being:-
> > > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield
Centre has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not
having any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis
that:-
> > > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington
church
> > > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington
Field'
> > > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields
of Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the
battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter,
Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places
for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was
Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French
solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part
we were the reason why the battle was won."
> > > >
> > > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological
team (who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the
compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between
the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the
compensation grant.
> > > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but
I'm delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold.  I
think it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and
I am very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like
quite a small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot
about the boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open
for debate.
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

i know the naming practice in the late 1700's of naming several sons all the
same and after the father was to ensure that at least one son survived to carry
on the name sake/family name. it doesn't take much of a stretch of the
imagination to consider that these 18C parents were copying a medieval practice
of ensuring the family name of "john paston" carried on for a few more
generations.
 
this same name, "in the family" also one reason we have pet names: john/jack,
edward/ed/ned/ted/ward, hal/hank/henry, or mary/molly,
elizabeth/bess/beth/liz/lisbet, margaret/meg/peggy, etc.
 
and then there are the latin names such as that of jacob which becomes james,
isabel is elizabeth.
 
roslyn

--- On Sun, 12/6/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham
To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
Received: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 4:01 PM


 





--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@.. .>
wrote:
>
> :

> There was an even worse situation with duchesses of Norfolk in the 1460s and
early 1470s, with two dowagers (Katherine Neville and Eleanor Bourchier) and one
current (Elizabeth Talbot). Can anybody think of any bigger pile-ups?
>
> Marie

No...I'm still coping with Isabel DeSpencer and her husbands, Richard Beauchamp
and Richard Beauchamp (each of whom had a daughter named Elizabeth) and John
Paston and his sons John and John, who were only a few years apart in age, were
adults at the same time, and were born of the same wife, not to mention John
Talbot and his sons John and John, who also were adults at the same time, though
they were from different marriages.

There are so many duplicate names circulating in those times that one can feel
sorry for Barbara Tuchman, who said in the foreword of her "A Distant Mirror"
that at one point in her research, she discovered that she had spent a year and
a half following the wrong Enguerrand de Coucy. Who would have thought there
would be two men by that name, living at the same time, moving in the same
circles?

Katy








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There were two Margaret Beauforts, both daughters of Dukes of Somerset, who were
cousins. They both had sons named Henry, born in the same year.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: oregonkaty
   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 9:01 PM
   Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham





   --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
   >
   > :

   > There was an even worse situation with duchesses of Norfolk in the 1460s and
early 1470s, with two dowagers (Katherine Neville and Eleanor Bourchier) and one
current (Elizabeth Talbot). Can anybody think of any bigger pile-ups?
   >
   > Marie

   No...I'm still coping with Isabel DeSpencer and her husbands, Richard
Beauchamp and Richard Beauchamp (each of whom had a daughter named Elizabeth)
and John Paston and his sons John and John, who were only a few years apart in
age, were adults at the same time, and were born of the same wife, not to
mention John Talbot and his sons John and John, who also were adults at the same
time, though they were from different marriages.

   There are so many duplicate names circulating in those times that one can feel
sorry for Barbara Tuchman, who said in the foreword of her "A Distant Mirror"
that at one point in her research, she discovered that she had spent a year and
a half following the wrong Enguerrand de Coucy. Who would have thought there
would be two men by that name, living at the same time, moving in the same
circles?

   Katy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> :

> There was an even worse situation with duchesses of Norfolk in the 1460s and
early 1470s, with two dowagers (Katherine Neville and Eleanor Bourchier) and one
current (Elizabeth Talbot). Can anybody think of any bigger pile-ups?
>
> Marie



No...I'm still coping with Isabel DeSpencer and her husbands, Richard Beauchamp
and Richard Beauchamp (each of whom had a daughter named Elizabeth) and John
Paston and his sons John and John, who were only a few years apart in age, were
adults at the same time, and were born of the same wife, not to mention John
Talbot and his sons John and John, who also were adults at the same time, though
they were from different marriages.

There are so many duplicate names circulating in those times that one can feel
sorry for Barbara Tuchman, who said in the foreword of her "A Distant Mirror"
that at one point in her research, she discovered that she had spent a year and
a half following the wrong Enguerrand de Coucy.  Who would have thought there
would be two men by that name, living at the same time, moving in the  same
circles?

Katy

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> thank you stephen. so, it would seem they "shared" the title. because the
record does read anne, duchess of buckingham. there is no clarification of
dowager in the record. it threw me for a moment when i read it. knowing henry's
mother was margaret and his wife was katherine.

The medievals didn't seem to find the situation as confusing as we do, and
didn't often specify 'dowager'. If they wanted to distinguish they more often
just referred to 'the old duchess' or 'the young duchess'.
There was an even worse situation with duchesses of Norfolk in the 1460s and
early 1470s, with two dowagers (Katherine Neville and Eleanor Bourchier) and one
current (Elizabeth Talbot). Can anybody think of any bigger pile-ups?

Marie



>  
> it sent me scurrying to my files to see if his father had married twice, or if
it was possible that katherine was also known as anne. i had to go back one more
generation to find the "anne" in the document.
>  
> and then i had to also check my records to determine exactly when henry had
become the duke. if "dowager" had been in the document, it wouldn't have been
quite so puzzling to me.
> it's the first time in over a decade and a half of research that i have run
into this "scenario".
>  
> regards
> roslyn
>
> --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham
> To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
> Received: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 11:34 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> As she married him after 1460 when the first Duke died, she became Duchess of
Buckingham immediately as wife of the current Duke - her grandmother- in-law
would have simply been the Dowager Duchess as widow of a previous Duke.
> Similarly, Edward Stafford's wife became Duchess on their marriage - his
mother being alive or not is irrelevant.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayreroze
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:28 PM
> Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham
>
> i just found a record for Anne, Duchess of Buckingham. it was dated feb. 14,
1478. this anne is an older sister of cecily neville, and is also henry, duke of
buckingham's grandmother.
>
> his grandfather humprhrey died, 1460.
> his father humphrey died in 1459.
> henry was aged 23 in 1478.
>
> henry was married to katherine/catherine woodville.
> anne died in 1480.
>
> when did katherine become known as the duchess of buckingham. did she and her
grandmother in law "share" the title? or did katherine need to wait until anne
died?
>
> Essex Records Office.
> Item
> Reference Code D/DBa T1/220
> Dates of Creation 14 February 1478.
> Title [Deed: Final concord made in the court of Anne, Duchess of Buckingham..
..
>
> roslyn
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Henry's father was never a Duke so his mother was not a Duchess.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: fayre rose
   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:15 PM
   Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham



   thank you stephen. so, it would seem they "shared" the title. because the
record does read anne, duchess of buckingham. there is no clarification of
dowager in the record. it threw me for a moment when i read it. knowing henry's
mother was margaret and his wife was katherine.

   it sent me scurrying to my files to see if his father had married twice, or if
it was possible that katherine was also known as anne. i had to go back one more
generation to find the "anne" in the document.

   and then i had to also check my records to determine exactly when henry had
become the duke. if "dowager" had been in the document, it wouldn't have been
quite so puzzling to me.
   it's the first time in over a decade and a half of research that i have run
into this "scenario".

   regards
   roslyn

   --- On Sun, 12/6/09, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

   From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
   Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham
   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
   Received: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 11:34 AM



   As she married him after 1460 when the first Duke died, she became Duchess of
Buckingham immediately as wife of the current Duke - her grandmother- in-law
would have simply been the Dowager Duchess as widow of a previous Duke.
   Similarly, Edward Stafford's wife became Duchess on their marriage - his
mother being alive or not is irrelevant.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: fayreroze
   To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
   Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:28 PM
   Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham

   i just found a record for Anne, Duchess of Buckingham. it was dated feb. 14,
1478. this anne is an older sister of cecily neville, and is also henry, duke of
buckingham's grandmother.

   his grandfather humprhrey died, 1460.
   his father humphrey died in 1459.
   henry was aged 23 in 1478.

   henry was married to katherine/catherine woodville.
   anne died in 1480.

   when did katherine become known as the duchess of buckingham. did she and her
grandmother in law "share" the title? or did katherine need to wait until anne
died?

   Essex Records Office.
   Item
   Reference Code D/DBa T1/220
   Dates of Creation 14 February 1478.
   Title [Deed: Final concord made in the court of Anne, Duchess of Buckingham..
..

   roslyn

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

thank you stephen. so, it would seem they "shared" the title. because the record
does read anne, duchess of buckingham. there is no clarification of dowager in
the record. it threw me for a moment when i read it. knowing henry's mother was
margaret and his wife was katherine.
 
it sent me scurrying to my files to see if his father had married twice, or if
it was possible that katherine was also known as anne. i had to go back one more
generation to find the "anne" in the document.
 
and then i had to also check my records to determine exactly when henry had
become the duke. if "dowager" had been in the document, it wouldn't have been
quite so puzzling to me.
it's the first time in over a decade and a half of research that i have run
into this "scenario".
 
regards
roslyn

--- On Sun, 12/6/09, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:


From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham
To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
Received: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 11:34 AM


 



As she married him after 1460 when the first Duke died, she became Duchess of
Buckingham immediately as wife of the current Duke - her grandmother- in-law
would have simply been the Dowager Duchess as widow of a previous Duke.
Similarly, Edward Stafford's wife became Duchess on their marriage - his mother
being alive or not is irrelevant.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayreroze
To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:28 PM
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham

i just found a record for Anne, Duchess of Buckingham. it was dated feb. 14,
1478. this anne is an older sister of cecily neville, and is also henry, duke of
buckingham's grandmother.

his grandfather humprhrey died, 1460.
his father humphrey died in 1459.
henry was aged 23 in 1478.

henry was married to katherine/catherine woodville.
anne died in 1480.

when did katherine become known as the duchess of buckingham. did she and her
grandmother in law "share" the title? or did katherine need to wait until anne
died?

Essex Records Office.
Item
Reference Code D/DBa T1/220
Dates of Creation 14 February 1478.
Title [Deed: Final concord made in the court of Anne, Duchess of Buckingham.. ..

roslyn

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As she married him after 1460 when the first Duke died, she became Duchess of
Buckingham immediately as wife of the current Duke - her grandmother-in-law
would have simply been the Dowager Duchess as widow of a previous Duke.
Similarly, Edward Stafford's wife became Duchess on their marriage - his mother
being alive or not is irrelevant.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: fayreroze
   To: richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:28 PM
   Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Anne Neville - Duchess of Buckingham



   i just found a record for Anne, Duchess of Buckingham. it was dated feb. 14,
1478. this anne is an older sister of cecily neville, and is also henry, duke of
buckingham's grandmother.

   his grandfather humprhrey died, 1460.
   his father humphrey died in 1459.
   henry was aged 23 in 1478.

   henry was married to katherine/catherine woodville.
   anne died in 1480.

   when did katherine become known as the duchess of buckingham. did she and her
grandmother in law "share" the title? or did katherine need to wait until anne
died?

   Essex Records Office.
   Item
   Reference Code D/DBa T1/220
   Dates of Creation 14 February 1478.
   Title [Deed: Final concord made in the court of Anne, Duchess of
Buckingham....

   roslyn





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i just found a record for Anne, Duchess of Buckingham. it was dated feb. 14,
1478. this anne is an older sister of cecily neville, and is also henry, duke of
buckingham's grandmother.

his grandfather humprhrey died, 1460.
his father humphrey died in 1459.
henry was aged 23 in 1478.

henry was married to katherine/catherine woodville.
anne died in 1480.

when did katherine become known as the duchess of buckingham. did she and her
grandmother in law "share" the title? or did katherine need to wait until anne
died?

Essex Records Office.
Item
Reference Code  D/DBa T1/220
Dates of Creation 14 February 1478.
Title [Deed: Final concord made in the court of Anne, Duchess of Buckingham....


roslyn

No I mean in the sense of "complete", clarifiyng, in italian we say "esaustivo"
to say "thet clear all doubt".

Sorry for the misunderstanding

Stefano
--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> You mean 'exhausting'.
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thank You for Your exaustive response
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22"
an article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle
near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and
also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on
Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is
here greatly revised.
> > > > Has someone red it?
> > > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > >
> > > > Stefano
> > >
> > >
> > > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating
what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years
been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three
best-known contenders being:-
> > > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre
has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having
any really early documentation to back it up;
> > > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis
that:-
> > > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington
church
> > > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of
Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the
battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter,
Witherley and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places
for damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was
Mike Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French
solider. The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we
were the reason why the battle was won."
> > >
> > > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team
(who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the
compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between
the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the
compensation grant.
> > > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm
delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold.  I think
it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am
very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a
small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the
boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for
debate.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

You mean 'exhausting'.


--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thank You for Your exaustive response
>
> Stefano
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an
article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle
near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and
also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on
Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is
here greatly revised.
> > > Has someone red it?
> > > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Stefano
> >
> >
> > I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating
what you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years
been differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three
best-known contenders being:-
> > 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre
has been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having
any really early documentation to back it up;
> > 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> > a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington
church
> > b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> > c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of
Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the
battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> > 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley
and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for
damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike
Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider.
The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> > "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we
were the reason why the battle was won."
> >
> > The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team
(who have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the
compnsation grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between
the parishes immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the
compensation grant.
> > I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm
delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold.  I think
it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am
very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a
small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the
boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for
debate.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
>

Thank You for Your exaustive response

Stefano

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@> wrote:
> >
> > Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an
article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle
near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and
also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on
Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> > Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here
greatly revised.
> > Has someone red it?
> > Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Stefano
>
>
> I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what
you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been
differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three
best-known contenders being:-
> 1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has
been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any
really early documentation to back it up;
> 2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
> a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
> b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
> c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of
Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the
battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
> 3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley
and Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for
damage to crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike
Jones who also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider.
The pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
> "he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were
the reason why the battle was won."
>
> The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who
have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation
grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes
immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation
grant.
> I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm
delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold.  I think
it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am
very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a
small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the
boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for
debate.
>
> Marie
>
> >
>

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Abikapi2" <bisudagan@...> wrote:
>
> Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an
article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle
near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and
also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on
Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
> Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here
greatly revised.
> Has someone red it?
> Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?
>
> Thank you
>
> Stefano


I haven't read the article you mention, and forgive me if I'm reiterating what
you already know, but the background is that there have in recent years been
differences of opinion about exactly where the battle was fought, the three
best-known contenders being:-
1) The traditional site, around Ambien Hill, where the Battlefield Centre has
been placed, considered by many re-enactors to be unsuitable, and not having any
really early documentation to back it up;
2) "Peter Foss's site", being the parish of Dadlington, on the basis that:-
a) as we know that there were some 40 battlefield burials in Dadlington church
b) A document from reign of Henry VIII calls the battle 'Dadlington Field'
c) A 13C document refers to 6 roods of meadow in Redemore in the fields of
Dadlington, and Redemore is the place John Sponor, returning to York from the
battle, told the York City Council that he had been.
3) "Michael K. Jones' site", being between Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley and
Fenny Drayton, because Henry VII paid compensation to these places for damage to
crops caused by his troops "at our late victorious field". It was Mike Jones who
also dug out an old reference to the letter from the French solider. The
pertinent sentence of which is, in translation:-
"he [Henry Tudor] wanted to be on foot in the midst of us, and in part we were
the reason why the battle was won."

The interesting thing about the announcement from the archaeological team (who
have investigated the Ambien hill and Dadlington sites, but not the compnsation
grant area) is that their finds were not in Dadlington, but between the parishes
immediately to the west - ie between Dadlington and the area of the compensation
grant.
I had twigged that Dadlington itself had proved rather fruitless, but I'm
delighted to learn that the later phases of the dig did strike gold.  I think
it's rather nice that the find lies between the three disputed sites, and I am
very keen to learn just exactly where the shot was found. It sounds like quite a
small area (was 1 km mentioned?), in which case it will leave a lot about the
boundaries of the battle site, and the story of the battle, still open for
debate.

Marie

>

Recently I read on "Miniature wargames issue 314 June 2009 ppgg 16-22" an
article written by George Anderson that moves the location of Bosworth battle
near the site of Atherstone mor than two miles south-west of the old site, and
also explain his version of Richard's dead, not charging Henry that was on
Horseback but on foot, mentioning a letter from a french soldier at tudor
service, Henry was on foot and surrounded by a Huge group of Pikemen.
Also the role of Stanleys, not active in Richars's defeat, and Percy is here
greatly revised.
Has someone red it?
Any ideas about the thesis here expressed?

Thank you

Stefano

I have a copy of it and it is superb

--- In richardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com, Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
>
> In case not everyone is aware, the latest DVD from loyaltybindsme.com
> is now available. It covers the Battle of Wakefield and the building
> of Sandal's Castles.
>
> Gilda
>

In case not everyone is aware, the latest DVD from loyaltybindsme.com
is now available. It covers the Battle of Wakefield and the building
of Sandal's Castles.

Gilda

Thinking about it, maybe that shouldn't have been the first question. The first
thing should have been - if Edward's hadn't had Clarence attainted and executed,
what would have happened instead before 1483? My guess is that Clarence might
have been released, started up again, been re-arrested and become a long-term
prisoner in the Tower, and that is where he would have been in 1483.
Edward IV therefore continues to act as though Clarence was no longer in the
picture. Richard maybe gets appointed Protector, and Stony Stratford and the
rest happens just as it did.
Does Richard leave Clarence in the Tower? If so, what happens next? What does
Clarence do? Does he try to persuade Richard that his only safety lies in
supporting his own claim? Does Richard go for it?
Or does Richard leave him in the Tower? What trouble could he cause from in
there?

Or what might have happened in Edward IV had died before the summer of 1477,
leaving just his pre-Picquigny will and with his sons only babies?

Marie


   I've often wondered what would have happened in 1483 if George had been alive
and become protector instead of Richard .... Now that's a topic for a good long
discussion!
> > Regards, Annette
>
> Absolutely! I suppose the first question would be: What instructions would
Edward have left in his will? I can't see him having named Clarence as
Protector. Gloucester, over Clarence's head? Or would he have kept the
arrangement as per 1475, with power remaining with the Woodvilles?
>
> Marie
>