Many thanks for this. I mentioned in another e-mail that, what Richardson is
enduring, reminded me of the title of a book written by Diana Rigg. I wonder
whether he knows the title and why it applies to him-----why did he make it
necessary to apply to him?
I think his slight of hand in this matter is beyond description, the only
description that fits comes from Spencer Hines and you have reminded us all
of it.
Many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent and
thecause of all bad weather
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:49:14 -0800, Douglas Richardson
royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:30 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure
that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs
John ~
The lawsuit states that John Sparrowhawk "came before the king at
Westminster" "by order of the king." While the wording is rather
specific (in fact, it is twice stated that John Sparrowhark was
brought before the king), this does not necessarily mean that the king
himself heard the testimony directly. Rather, the lawsuit stipulates
that the testimony was heard before the king's coroner, who was acting
under the "authority and command of the king." This is rather
standard legal parlance of the period. The exact wording is provided
below.
When asked if he was absolutely sure that the king himself was sitting
on the Court of the King's Bench, Mr. Richardson first replied: "Yes,
I'm quite sure."
Three hours later, Mr. Richardson wrote: "this does not necessarily
mean that the king himself heard the testimony directly ... This is
rather standard legal parlance of the period."
The latter statement includes no acknowledgment of the criticism from
Leo van de Pas, but it has been revised to include the new knowledge
gained from Leo, and it even clearly echoes some of the wording ("the
basic parlance of English legal proceedings in the Middle Ages") in
Leo's post, which Mr. Richardson carefully excised.
Mr. Richardson subtly managed to change his interpretation of the
original document without writing the magic words "Sorry, I was wrong"
and "Thanks to Leo for correcting me."
To save face, the incorrect interpretation first propounded by Mr.
Richardson had to be expunged from the record, in a way that will be
familiar to Kremlinologists everywhere. The earlier message, in which
Mr. Richardson was "quite sure" that the king was present, has
mysteriously disappeared from Google Groups. However, I quote it in
its entirety below, for the record.
I am increasingly convinced of the correctness of this assessment of
Mr. Richardson by DSH, as expressed in a hissy fit on March 11, 2004:
"In my carefully considered opinion, anyone who has been following
Richardson's posts to this newsgroup over the years and who has NOT
come to the conclusion that Richardson is a sly, manipulative
charlatan and an utter fraud is clearly naive, none-too-swift and a
damned fool to boot."
Well said, Spencer!
By the way, why have you now revised your opinion? Why the change from
Calcitravi to Linxi with respect to the Richardsonian Asinus?
I am reminded of the memorable words of Sybil Fawlty:
"You never get it right, do you? You're either crawling all over them,
licking their boots, or spitting poison at them like some Benzedrine
puff-adder."
Tish
THE MESSAGE THAT REFUSES TO DISAPPEAR:
___________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com
Newsgroups:
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty
Subject: Re: King Henry IV of England: The son of a butcher of Ghent
and the cause of all bad weather
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:30:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <1194841825.574680.192310@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com
References: <1194834949.077938.102470@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com
1iPZi.39512$T8.30336@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.165.255.184
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1194841826 28694 127.0.0.1 (12 Nov 2007
04:30:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:30:26 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1iPZi.39512$T8.30336@newsfe5-win.ntli.net
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=75.165.255.184;
posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: news.motzarella.org soc.genealogy.medieval:30157768
soc.history.medieval:30488282 alt.history.british:5381315
alt.talk.royalty:30275062
On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, "John Briggs" <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
As it was the Court of the King's Bench, are you absolutely sure that the
king himself was sitting on it?
--
John Briggs
John ~
Yes, I'm quite sure. The published account twice states that John
Sparrowhawk was brought "before the king."
"Memorandum that on Thursday after the Quinzaine of Easter [13 April
1402] in the third year of the reign of king Henry, fourth after
Conquest, one John Sparrowhawk of Cardiff in Wales came before the
king at Westminster, brought by order of the king before the said king
by Sir Henry Percy, earl of Northumberland and constable of England,
and Thomas Pickworth, knight, the marshal, and there by authority and
command of the king the said John Sparrowhawk confessed as matter of
record before Thomas Cowley, the coroner of the king's bench, the
things given below in the following form." END OF QUOTE.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message