Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Terence

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
The Windsors / Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part IV
« on: May 04, 2017, 05:59:08 PM »
Breaking news...
Generalissimo Franco is still dead,
Prince Philip not so much. :)

2
The Windsors / Re: Queen Elizabeth II Part IV
« on: May 04, 2017, 12:31:47 AM »
There are rumors tonight that Prince Philip had died.  It's because her staff is being summoned to London.  Who knows.

3
Forum Announcements / Re: Forum Members Not Heard From in a Long While
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:33:25 PM »
That's good to hear FA.  Please give them my best when you "see" them.  Let them know I'm still on this side of the sod.  Be well.

4
Forum Announcements / Re: Forum Members Not Heard From in a Long While
« on: March 19, 2017, 08:10:03 PM »
Thank you. It is gratifying to be appreciated.  ;)  While the number of posts is lower than it once was, the number of users daily is still strong. About 1000 users per day come here. There are about 150 users here at any one time of the day.  There will never be a charge to access the historical information here. That has always been Bob's pledge, and will never change.  Free and unfettered access to this historical information and the accuracy and confidence of that accuracy of that information will always be our guiding goal.
ę Last Edit: March 14, 2017, 12:20:28 AM by Forum Admin Ľ

Yes, this site is a gem of historical info.  I've been gone for awhile, life and other interests distracted.  Then when I tried to come back on I couldn't remember my info to log in.

The idea that it's 2017 compelled me to try again.  It worked!  I see some familiar faces here but wonder about others.  I was still here when Robert Hall passed on as I found I'd referenced that, but wonder about others.  Louis-Charles, Grandduchessella, Bear?, Tsarfan been around?

Have any regular posters from say 2005-13 passed on since then?  Well HEY to those that remember me, I was never prolific but enjoyed some great exchanges here. :) :eek:

5
The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« on: April 23, 2013, 12:54:03 AM »
For those interested in this time period, a book on the women of the Wars of the Roses, actually contemporarily called the Cousins Wars.  I like that term much better as it is true to the times, not something made up later.
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml
T

6
Well done, a very interesting read.

I think there is one spot where a correction is needed, if I'm reading it right (and I'm tired right now).  Page 74 has
 "According to the male line of succession,
Mikhailís replacement as theoretical regent of Russia, in the event of Alekseiís
ascension before the age of twenty-one, should have been Nicholasís cousin,
Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, the eldest son of his brother, Grand Duke
Vladimir, who had died in 1909, and Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna."

Shouldn't that read "the eldest son of his father's brother"?

T

7
The Tudors / Re: Richard III and the Princes in the Tower
« on: March 27, 2013, 03:12:29 PM »

8
The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« on: March 16, 2013, 09:18:29 PM »
Quote
However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.  

I think that is a little unfair - in the parliamentary debate the government basically said it was unusual to alter the terms of a licence although it accepted that the various interested parties had a point that the licence could be varied.  But since they seem currently to be sticking to the UoL as the deciding body, it makes no odds.  However, I would agree that the UoL does not seem to be being very diplomatic about the tomb, and would add that Leicester Cathedral is ditto, while I rather think that the Richard III society should have lined up its ducks with the university and the cathedral before seeking funds and designing a tomb in the first place.  It all looks like a train collision in slow motion at present, and although the various parties are reasonably civil, it looks like it could get nasty quite fast.

I don't think it's in the least unfair.  The licence has always allowed burial of an unidentified person nearest the nearest burial site.  An identified person is another issue, there are national guidlines, like I mentioned, they are being ignored.  IMO they were deceptive about this, from what I have read.  Now we know they are renigging on a previous agreement about the tomb.

And as you can see from the comments here the persons involved from the begining have been misled.  Both John and Phillipa who really made this project possible are extremely upset at the current state of things.

http://www.lostincastles.com/history-interviews/2013/3/16/john-ashdown-hill-from-the-search-for-richard-project.html

Very sad that Richard was abused before his burial and now some want to repeat it.

T

9
The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« on: March 13, 2013, 07:57:24 PM »
Now, this is interesting.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130307/debtext/130307-0001.htm#13030784000048.

look under "Church Commissioners"

Following on from this, there will be an Adjournment Debate today in parliament regarding the terms of the Exhumation Licence granted to the University of Leicester arising from the concerns raised by Hugh Bayley ( MP for York central ).

Here is the debate: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/house-of-commons-21757331

...


Meanwhile, Leicester Cathedral has thrown the cat well and truly among the pigeons by announcing that it has no room for the tomb which the Society had designed,

http://m.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story.html?aid=18391233

and which the Society's members had evidently contributed to on the expectation that it would be used. Some of them had been extremely defensive of Leicester's claim to keep the King's bones.


This is becoming a tremendous mess.

Indeed Janet it has, very sad.  From what I've seen there was much acceptance of Leicester Cathedral amongst Ricardians, partly based on the fact it was presented as a done deal.  IE, it was put out that the license for exhumation required reburial in the nearest appropriate burial spot.

However not it turns out that is not the case, other considerations can come into play, the wishes of relatives, the deceased's intentions, etc.  Basically it seems the UoL was less than truthful and trying to pull a fast one.  Just recently they haven't helped themselves by rejecting a tomb, insisting on a slab and then releasing this brief-
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofR\ichardIII130313.pdf

Overall the brief isn't too bad, but there are a couple of things that Ricardians object to, including an inaccurate bit of history re: Bosworth.  But hey, it's RIII, comes w/ the territory.  Seems like they really mucked it up, almost a done deal.

As I'm an American I won't offer an opinion, other than to say there are other places maybe more apropo and the deceit by UoL leaves a bad taste for anyone who values honesty.

T


10
I thought I remembered the stabbing was the same day as the assasination so I did a search, I knew it had been discussed here.  I found a thread on the stabbing- http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=2796.msg304814#msg304814 .

Rudy is indeed correct, it was June 29 OS, making it July 12 NS.  Reply #11 has a link to Belochka's bio of Rasputin, well researched and worth reading.

T

11
Alright, then. I have finished the book, and by the way, I would like a medal.

This may be the worst book I have ever read, and I am including the Danielle Steele novel I downed once while on vacation because there was literally nothing else available (and I mean nothing else; before I turned to it, I had read the back of every cereal box in the cabinet and the instructions on a bottle of Listerine, all of which were better than Princess Daisy. But I digress.)
olds writing fanfiction, but this doesn't even rise to that level, and the damn thing costs over ten bucks. Run. And don't look back...

I forget. Did I mention the medal?

Thanks Simon, glad you took the hit for the rest of us.  And kudos on your award!
T


12
When I was younger, the murders affected me on a more emotional level. Now, the forensics is more fascinating. Reading the testimony of the killers, the DNA evidence, etc, is intriguing. It's one of history's great murder mysteries. Perhaps watching too many CSI shows did that. <chuckle>

The fates of Ivan VI and the French Dauphin disgust me more deeply. The deliberate psychological torture of those boys were, to me, the greater atrocities. Ivan VI & the Dauphin were emotionally destroyed by inches long before death finally freed them. The IF were locked up and deprived, but they suffered comparatively less abuse. Their deaths came mercifully fast.

Totally agree Paul, the torture there was sick. They were just born to be abused through no fault of their own, very sad.

And for Tsarfan, there's really not much complicated thinking involved, since the Duke of Buckingham had a direct motive to off the kids, and had access. Richard had no real reason as Parliament had declared them illegitimate and him the King.  I'll take this further on the appropriate thread.

T

13
The Princes in the Tower and Britney Spears' career.  No wait . . . belay that last one.  Pick her up and put her in the Tower in place of the princes.  Just before Uncle Richard's friends drop by.

LOL
To Tim...well while you're in 1485 England, grab Uncle Richard before Bosworth.  For all the good he did in England I don't think he deserved that chop to the back of his head that we now know did him in.

Tsarfan, I suspect it wasn't Richard's friends that dropped by the Tower, but his enemies.  My money is on the Duke of Buckingham.

T

14
The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« on: February 21, 2013, 05:50:17 PM »
Thanks for the clarification mcdnab.  I understood the sentence but not the underlying supposition.

And thanks for the details on E. Woodville's lineage.  It's back aways, but she indeed had 2 lines of Plantagenet descent.

T

15
The Tudors / Re: Richard III remains found & identified
« on: February 20, 2013, 06:49:49 PM »
Here's a couple of links from the UL site. The first explains a lot about
why they released the info when they did. Very illustrative in the
comments, seems like several from the University staff are commenting.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/genealogy.html

This a great explanation of Ibsen's line.

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/familytree.html

These are all about the DNA & genealogy. I haven't had time to look for
anything there about the archeology, I'd like to look and see what is said
if anything about Appleby's cracking Richard's skull.

T

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16