User:Jbeans/Sandbox

——jakes's WORK-BOARD (August, 2008): \\\\\WORK-BOARD\\\\\/////WORK-BOARD////\\\\WORK-BOARD\\\////WORK-BOARD////\\\\WORK-

Seniority in line from Edward III
Below is a list-graphic which depicts the warring progeny of Edward III; it shows names, dates, seniority of lineages and other historical particulars for Edward and certain of his direct-line descendants via his five surviving sons, including his third son, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, founder of the House of Lancaster and father of Henry Bolingbroke. Thus, all those listed are closely-related kin within the Plantagenet dynasty, which itself traces directly back to the accession to the English throne of Henry II in 1154. Bold typeface and various markers indicate some of the uncles and cousins most motivated or affected by competition among themselves for the throne. They also show the rising of contestants to Henry Bolingbroke's usurpation of the throne in 1399, and to the long legacy of violence that followed.

Notably, many of the actors listed died violently --indicated by X markers-- and some died young, either from contesting (pro or con) the usurpation, or from simply being in the the way of a murderous cousin or uncle. Those alive at the time of the abdication (1399) of Richard II are bolded. The @ marks the pretender Edmund Mortimer, who was the heir presumptive in 1399; that is, he was the male in the direct line from Edward III that was senior to all other claimant lines. Regardless, Henry Bolingbroke, proclaimed as Henry IV, successfully captured the throne that year for the house of Lancaster; and soon thereafter the Yorkists allied with the Mortimers to contest Henry's usurpation.

The @@ indicates merging the claims of Yorkists and Mortimers in the person of Richard Plantagenet, who was born to Anne de Mortimer and Richard of Conisburgh, house of York, in 1411, some two years before Henry's death in 1413.

The <> indicates the six of the Plantagenet cousins who actually achieved the crown --two of them twice; and one, Edward V, (though first acclaimed as king, then was thrust into the Tower), not at all-- during some ninety plus years of fighting, rebellions and civil wars. (The +'s mark the two Princes in the Tower of London.)

For proclaimed monarchs, whether or not they were crowned --see Edward V-- the life dates, in brackets, are amplified by adding "life and reign" dates, in {} brackets. Here, an "r" joins the date pairs that show the years of the monarch's "reign", regardless of whether the monarch actually ruled during the period of his reign. (The singular date is the year of death if different from the monarch's last year of reign.)
 * Edward III of England (1312-1377)---{1312-1327r1377}


 * Edward, the Black Prince (1330-1376)
 * Edward (1365-1372)
 * <> Richard II of England (1367-1400)---{1367-1377r1399, 1400} (deposed --then judicially murdered(?)-- by direction of Henry Bolingbroke, house of Lancaster)--- X


 * Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence (1338–1368)
 * Philippa Plantagenet, 5th Countess of Ulster (1355–1382) (the only child of Lionel of Antwerp; her seniority of royal lineage passed to her [Mortimer] children.)
 * Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March (1374–1398)
 * @ Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (1391–1425)
 * Roger Mortimer (died young c. 1411)
 * Anne de Mortimer (1390–1411) (married Richard of Conisburgh, house of York)
 * @@ Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (1411-1460)-- X
 * Eleanor (d. 1418)
 * Edmund Mortimer (1376-1409?)
 * Elizabeth de Mortimer (1370/1371-1417)
 * Philippa de Mortimer (1375-1401)


 * John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (1340–1399)House of Lancaster
 * <> Henry IV of England (1367-1413)---{1367-1399r1413} (usurped the throne in 1399)
 * <> Henry V of England (1387-1422)---{1387-1413r1422}
 * <> Henry VI of England (1421-1471)---{1421-1422r1461; 1470r1471}-- X
 * Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales (1453-1471)--- X


 * Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York (1341-1402)-House of York
 * Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, Duke of Aumale (1373-1415)'''
 * Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge (1375-1415) (married Anne de Mortimer)-- X
 * @@ Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (1411-1460)--- X
 * <> Edward IV of England (1442-1483)---{1442-1461r1470; 1471r1483}
 * +<> Edward V of England (1470-1483?)---{1470-1483r1483, 1483?}-- X
 * + Richard, Duke of York (1473-1483?)--- X
 * Edmund, Earl of Rutland (1443-1460)- X
 * George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence (1449-1478)--- X
 * Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury (1473—1541) (married Sir Richard Pole; executed by direction of Henry VIII of England)X
 * Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (1475—1489) (executed by direction of Henry VII of England; for attempting to escape the Tower of London)--- X


 * <> Richard III of England (1452-1485)---{1452-1483r1485}--- X


 * Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (1355-1397)--- X

The Usurpation and its Legacy
When Richard II was forced to resign the throne in 1399 --shortly thereafter he was judicially(?) murdered in Pontefract Castle-- there was no question of who was likeliest in the political arena for taking over the succession. Richard's cousin Henry Bolingbroke, 2nd Duke of Lancaster, held broad political favor; the country rallied behind him and supported his claim in parliament, and he was crowned as Henry IV on 13 October 1399. However, the issue of Henry's usurpation of the throne never went away. His bold grab for power unleashed violent emotions and reactions from among his kin and from others emboldened by his example, and conjured a malevolent and stubborn legacy that held England in civil tormoil or tension for most years of the entire fifthteenth century; and the judicial murders(?) extended into the mid-sixteenth century.

The essential political malady lay in the fact that Henry was one of the most prominent(?) --but not necessarily senior-- of several male heirs in the Plantagenet houses. In 1376 he presumably was made heir-presumptive according to Edward III's entail(?) on the crown of that year. However, as Dr Ian Mortimer has recently pointed out in his biography of Henry IV, this entail was probably supplanted by an entail(?) made by Richard II in 1399. Therefore Henry, in order to maintain his accession, had to discount his cousin's preferment of the crown(?) on their uncle York (Edmund of Langley) and the house of York descendants. In addition, he had to overcome the superior claim of the Mortimers, who became closely allied with the Yorks.

Henry could not resolve all these bitter feelings and issues. Thus, Henry IV's dark legacy --the usurpation of 1399 and its consequential fighting, judicial murders, rebellions, and executions-- haunted his own reign (see above, "Rebellions") and those of his heirs and successors and other nobility for over a century. Notably, some sixty years after the usurpation, Henry VI (Henry's grandson and heir), was deposed --the first of two times-- by the Yorkists during the civil Wars of the Roses. Then, some seventy years after, Henry's own royal house of Lancaster was itself extinguished. In quick order (i.e., in May, 1471) the killing of the young Prince of Wales (Henry's great-grandson and heir) at the battle of Tewkesbury, and the execution (for treason) of Henry VI in the Tower of London, severed the male line of succession from Henry --and cut off his ambition for rule by the house of Lancaster.

Early on, in 1415, Richard Plantagenet's father, Richard of Conisburgh, house of York, was executed for his role in a failed plot against the usurpation and Henry V (Henry's son and heir). After 1425, Richard Plantagenet himself succeeded as heir to one uncle's (Edmund Mortmer) senior claim to the English throne, and then to another uncle's (Edward of Norwich) lands and title as Duke of York; thereby he became the senior claimant, champion and first pretender for the Yorkist cause, including the Mortimers.

In 1460, in the midst of the Wars of the Roses, Richard attempted to wrest away the throne, but failed, and, along with his young son Edmund, died in the subsequent fighting. However, Richard Plantagenet's many years of contesting with the Lancastrians finally succeeded --in 1461, with the unseating of Henry VI by the Yorkists, and settlement of the throne upon Richard's eldest son Edward IV.

Invidious betrayals, fraticidal fighting and horrific killings in the civil wars and their aftermath continued for some eighty more years. Essentially, both houses of York and Lancaster were (almost systematically) depleted of senior males who could legitimately vye for the throne. The two young Princes in the Tower were dispatched by judicial murder(?) without any inquiry into their fates; and one of their perfidious uncles, the Duke of Clarence, was killed by drowning in a butt of malmsey --according to Shakespeare(?). (Whether the malmsey is myth or no, the Duke indeed was sent to the Tower of London for treason, and there executed by order of his brother, Edward IV.)

Rule by the house of York --or serious pretence to the throne-- was extinguished as follows: Richard Plantagenet in 1460, (his father prior, in 1415), then five of his six sons and grandsons; all died violently, from 1460 through 1485, (see list-graphic) due to events flowing directly from the usurpation of 1399. Notably, only one Yorkist royal and participant in the warring, Edward IV, is famous for having died non-violently.

The last male of Richard Plantagenet's (and the Yorkist) royal line -- Edward, son of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence-- was executed by direction of Henry VII (Tudor) in 1499. And, as late as 1541(!), the last female was executed by direction of Henry VIII (Tudor). She was Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury, (nee Lady Margaret Plantagenet) --a grandmother, age 67, and godmother to Henry VIII's own daughter Lady Mary Tudor, the future queen, Mary I. These blatant judicial murders, and others of Pole's children, resulted from a perceived need to remove all potential rivals to the "new usurper" kings, the Tudors, who pursued without compunction the example set by Henry IV and the fatalistic Plantagenets.

In 1485, the last Plantagenet to occupy the throne of England fell. Richard III, house of York, was killed at the battle at Bosworth Field and his throne captured by the Welsh non-royal Henry Tudor --who subsequently was crowned as Henry VII. This Henry established a new dynasty amid the ashes of war; his opportunism --with the consequential successes and excesses of the Tudor dynasty-- was yet another legacy of the tragic ambitions of Henry IV.

The Legacy of Henry IV: Usurpation, rebellions, civil wars, fall of the dynasty of Plantagenet
//////\\\\\When Richard II resigned the throne in 1399, there was no question of who was highest in the order of succession. The country had rallied behind Henry and supported his claim in parliament. However, the question of the succession never went away. The problem lay in the fact that Henry was only the most prominent male heir. This made him heir to the throne according to Edward III's entail to the crown of 1376 but, as Dr Ian Mortimer has recently pointed out in his biography of Henry IV, this had probably been supplanted by an entail of Richard II made in 1399. Henry thus had to remove Richard II's settlement of the throne on their uncle York (Edmund of Langley) and Langley's Yorkist descendants and overcome the superior claim of the Mortimers in order to maintain his inheritance. This fact would later come back to haunt his grandson, Henry VI of England, who was deposed by Edward IV, son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, during the Wars of the Roses.///////\\\\\\\///////\\\\

This bitter issue would not die, and the plots, blood feuds and treacheries surrounding it held most of England in civil torment or tension for most years of the entire fifthteenth century.

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (3 October 1390 – February 23, 1447) was the fourth son of King Henry IV of England by his first wife, Mary de Bohun. --- He was created Duke of Gloucester in 1414, and upon the death of his brother, King Henry V of England in 1422, became regent of the Kingdom and Protector to his young nephew, the heir to the throne, King Henry VI. --- Following his wife's conviction for witchcraft, Gloucester himself was arrested on a charge of treason. He died at Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk a few days later and was buried at St Albans Abbey, adjacent to St Alban's shrine. At the time, some suspected that he had been assassinated, though it is more probable that he died of a stroke.

Marriages and children
In about 1422 he married Jacqueline, Countess of --- Meanwhile, Gloucester remarried, his second wife being his former mistress, [[Eleanor Cobham.  In 1441, Eleanor was tried and convicted of practising witchcraft against the King in an attempt to retain power for her husband.  She died in prison.

Gloucester had at least one illegitimate child (Antigone). It is unlikely that he had any surviving offspring by Eleanor Cobham, as they would have had a superior Lancastrian claim to the throne - after the extinguishing of the main line (in Henry VI and his son) in 1471 - to that of Margaret Beaufort and her son (Henry VII).

\\\\\/////subsumed the history of one of the most horrific centuries suffered by medieval England. /////\\\\\


 * Edward III of England (1312-1377)


 * Edward, the Black Prince (1330-1376)
 * Edward (1365-1372)
 *  +Richard II of England (1367-1400)-- X


 * Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence (1338–1368)
 * Philippa Plantagenet, 5th Countess of Ulster (1355–1382) (the only child of Lionel of Antwerp; her seniority of royal lineage passed to her [Mortimer] children.)
 * Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March (1374–1398)
 * @ Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (1391–1425)
 * Roger Mortimer (died young c. 1411)
 * Anne de Mortimer (1390–1411) (married Richard of Conisburgh, house of York)
 * @@ Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (1411-1460)-- X
 * Eleanor (d. 1418)
 * Edmund Mortimer (1376-1409?)
 * Elizabeth de Mortimer (1370/1371-1417)
 * Philippa de Mortimer (1375-1401)


 * John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (1340–1399)House of Lancaster
 * ++Henry IV of England (1367-1413)
 * +++Henry V of England (1387-1422)
 * ++++Henry VI of England (1421-1471)-- X
 * Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales (1453-1471)-- X


 * Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York (1341-1402)-House of York
 * Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, Duke of Aumale (1373-1415)'''
 * Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge (1375-1415) (married Anne de Mortimer)-- X
 * @@ Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (1411-1460)-- X
 * +++++Edward IV of England (1442-1483)
 * ++++++ ^Edward V of England (1470-1483?)-- X
 *  ^Richard, Duke of York (1473-1483?)-- X
 *  Edmund, Earl of Rutland (1443-1460)-- X
 *  George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence (1449-1478)-- X
 * +++++++ Richard III of England (1452-1485)-- X


 * Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester (1355-1397)-- X

Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury (14 August 1473—27 May 1541) - married Sir Richard Pole, was executed under Henry VIII of England. Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (1475—28 November 1489) - executed under Henry VII of England for attempting to escape the Tower of London.

////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Elizabeth Bennet Full Name: Elizabeth Bennet

Gender: Female

Age: 20[1]

Occupation: Daughter of a gentleman; later Chatelaine of Pemberley

Primary Residence: Longbourn in Hertfordshire, later Pemberley in Derbyshire

Family

Romantic Interest(s): Fitzwilliam Darcy (later her husband); George Wickham; Colonel Fitzwilliam

Parents: Mr Bennet and Mrs Bennet (formerly Miss Gardiner) Sibling(s): Jane Bennet (later Bingley) Mary Bennet Catherine (Kitty) Bennet Lydia Bennet (later Wickham) Film Adaptations

Elizabeth Bennet (sometimes referred to as Eliza or Lizzy) is a fictional

////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\

curr 21Sept 08

Pride and Prejudice, first published on 28 January 1813, is the most famous of Jane Austen's novels and one of the first "romantic comedies" in the history of the novel.[citation needed] The book is Jane Austen's second published novel. Its manuscript was initially written between 1796 and 1797 in Steventon, Hampshire, where Austen lived in the rectory. Called First Impressions, it was never published under that title, and following revisions it was retitled Pride and Prejudice.

03Sept 06

Pride and Prejudice belongs to the romantic-comedy genre and is the most famous of Jane Austen's novels, and its opening is one of the most famous lines in English literature—"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." Its manuscript was first written between 1796 and 1797, and was initially called First Impressions, but was never published under that title. Following revisions it was published on 28 January 1813 by the same Mr. Egerton of the Military Library, Whitehall, who had brought out Sense and Sensibility. Like both its predecessor and Northanger Abbey, it was written at Steventon Rectory.

31Aug 06

Pride and Prejudice is the most famous of Jane Austen's novels, and its opening is one of the most famous lines in English literature—"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." Its manuscript was first written between 1796 and 1797, and was initially called First Impressions, but was never published under that title. Following revisions it was published on 28 January 1813 by the same Mr. Egerton of the Military Library, Whitehall, who had brought out Sense and Sensibility. Like both its predecessor and Northanger Abbey, it was written at Steventon Rectory.

////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\

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

In Arthurian legend, Igraine is the mother of King Arthur by King Uther Pendragon. (She is also known in Latin as Igerna, in Welsh as Eigyr, in French as Igerne, in Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur as Ygrayne --often modernized as Igraine-- and in Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival as Arnive.) In time, she marries Uther Pendragon; but her first husband was Gorlois and her children by Gorlois are daughters Elaine, Anna-Morgause, and Morgan le Fay.

Geoffrey of Monmouth
The first surviving mention of Igraine is in Geoffrey of Monmouth's largely fictional work Historia Regum Britanniae, where she enters the story as the wife of Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall. King Uther Pendragon falls (lustfully) in love with her and attempts to force his attentions on her at his court. She informs her husband --who, with his wife in tow, departs the court without asking leave, an act of grave discourtesy to the king; all which gives Uther Pendragon an excuse to call for war. Gorlois defends his domain from the castle of Dimilioc, but he places his wife for safety --so he thinks-- in the castle of Tintagel.

Cleverly disguised (by Merlin) as Gorlois, Uther Pendragon is enabled to enter Tintagel and to fool Igraine. Thus, to satisfy his lust he uses Igraine by deceit, who believes she is lying with her husband; and she becomes pregnant with Arthur. As it happens, her husband Gorlois that same night dies in battle. (Geoffrey does not say, and later accounts disagree, as to whether Gorlois died before or after Arthur was conceived, a matter that might prove critical in determining if the infant Arthur could be made legitimate by subsequent marriage of his mother to the true father). Indeed, Uther Pendragon does later marry Igraine.

According to Geoffrey, Igraine bore another child to Unter Pendragon, a daughter Anna, and this Anna later became the mother of Gawain and Mordred. Further, Geoffrey also refers to a King Howel of Brittany as Arthur's nephew --presumably another son of Anna-- and presents the prophecy that a daughter of Uther will begat a line of seven kings. This latter scenario could be acceptable if Howel was indeed the son of the same Anna who was mother to Gawain and Mordred; but no later writer(s) in the literature validate this version by Geoffrey. There is confusion here, especially as Welsh genealogies also name an Anna as Howel's mother --but not the same one connected to Uther Pendragon.

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

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

Morgause, known in earlier works as Anna, is the daughter of Igraine, and the sister, or half-sister, of King Arthur in the Arthurian legends and literature. In her earliest appearance she is Arthur's full sister, fathered by Uther Pendragon; and later she becomes the mother of Gawain and Mordred.

In later works she is born to Igraine by (seemingly) her first husband Gorlois, and thereby is actually half-sister to Arthur due to her mother's (unknowning) liason with Uther Pendragon. She becomes pregnant with Mordred after sleeping with Arthur while they were unaware --???????????-- of their relation. Her husband is King Lot, an enemy of Arthur in the rebellions that follow Arthur's coronation.

((??: How is it that Anna & Arthur grew up unaware that their mother is the same person? RESEARCH --and explantory editing-- needed HERE!))

Her siblings include sisters Elaine and Morgan le Fay --and her (half) brother Arthur. Later works give her a total five children, all sons, while earlier material named daughters as well. From eldest to youngest, the sons of Morgause are Gawain, who becomes one of King Arthur's greatest knights, Agravaine, a wretched traitor, Gaheris, the heroic Gareth, a gentle and loving knight --and the villainous Mordred, her son with Arthur. Her sons play key roles in the sagas of Arthur and his kingdom. She is a significant character in Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, and in the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate versions of Merlin.

In Le Morte d'Arthur and the Post-Vulgate, Morgause's husband Lot is killed by King Pellinore in battle, starting a blood feud between the families of Pellinore and Lot. Pellinore then is killed by Gawain and Gaheris. Later, Morgause begins an affair with Lamorak, son of Pellinore and one of the most popular knights of the Round Table. Her son Gaheris catches them together, and kills Morgause in bed, though he lets Lamorak go. Believing that Lamorak has killed their mother, Gawain, Agravain, and Mordred (Gareth takes no part) vow revenge, and join Gaheris to ambush Lamorak and kill him. The brothers do eventually learn that Gaheris was the real killer; and he is banished from court (although he appears later in the narrative).

In modern variations, Morgause's character is sometimes combined with Morgan le Fay's, and her role as the mother of Mordred is transferred to Morgan.

T. H. White named one of the four volumes in The Once and Future King, The Queen of Air and Darkness, in reference to Morgause, who is a major figure in the book. A later section deals with Morgause's death at the hands of her own son; White transfers the crime to Agravaine rather than Gaheris.

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (Dec, 2008): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////\\\\\\\\\

1 prep
---re: "Emma"

Emma is a novel by Jane Austen, first published in December 1815, about the perils of misconstrued romance. The main character, Emma Woodhouse, is described in the opening paragraph as "handsome, clever, and rich" but is also rather spoiled. Prior to starting the novel, Austen wrote, "I am going to take a heroine whom no-one but myself will much like."

---re: "Jane Austen"

Jane Austen (16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was an English novelist whose realism, biting social commentary and masterful use of free indirect speech, burlesque and irony have earned her a place as one of the most widely read and most beloved writers in English literature.[1]

Austen's works critique the novels of sensibility of the second half of the eighteenth century and are part of the transition to nineteenth-century realism.[4][C] Austen's plots, though fundamentally comic,[5] highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security.[6] Like those of Samuel Johnson, one of the strongest influences on her writing, her works are concerned with moral issues.[7]

X--X

---re: "She Stoops to Conquer" Type of Comedy The type of comedy She Stoops to Conquer is has been much disputed. However there is a consensus amongst audiences and critics that the play is a comedy of manners (see below for details). It can also be seen as one of the following comedy types:

[edit] A Laughing Comedy or Sentimental Comedy When the play was first produced, it was discussed as an example of the revival of laughing comedy over the sentimental comedy seen as dominant on the English stage since the success of The Conscious Lovers, written by Sir Richard Steele in 1722. In the same year, an essay in a London magazine, entitled "An Essay On The Theatre; Or, A Comparison Between Laughing And Sentimental Comedy", suggested that sentimental comedy, a false form of comedy, had taken over the boards from the older and more truly comic laughing comedy.

Some theatre historians believe that the essay was written by Goldsmith as a puff piece for She Stoops to Conquer, as an exemplar of the laughing comedy Goldsmith (perhaps) had touted. Goldsmith's name was linked with that of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, author of The Rivals and The School for Scandal, as standard-bearers for the resurgent laughing comedy.

[edit] A Comedy of Manners The play can also be seen as a comedy of manners, where, set in a polite society, the comedy arises from the gap between the characters' attempts to preserve standards of polite behaviour, that contrasts to their true behaviour.

[edit] A Romantic Comedy It also seen by some critics as a romantic comedy, which depicts how seriously young people take love, and how foolishly it makes them behave (similar to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream); in She Stoops to Conquer, Kate’s stooping and Marlow’s nervousness are good examples of romantic comedy.

[edit] A Satire Alternatively, it can be seen as a satire, where characters are presented as either ludicrous or eccentric. Such a comedy might leave the impression that the characters are either too foolish or corrupt to ever reform, hence Mrs Hardcastle.

[edit] A Farce or a Comedy of Errors The play is sometimes described as a farce and a comedy of errors, because it’s based on multiple misunderstandings, hence Marlow and Hastings believing the Hardcastles' house is an inn.

[edit] Title The title refers to Kate's ruse of pretending to be a barmaid to reach her goal. It originates in the poetry of Dryden, which Goldsmith may have seen misquoted by Lord Chesterfield. In Chesterfield's version, the lines in question read:

"The prostrate lover, when he lowest lies, But stoops to conquer, and but kneels to rise."

X-X

---re: revise "Emma" --120308

2 final
Emma is a novel by Jane Austen, first published in December, 1815, in London. Obstensibly a story about the perils of misconstrued romance, the author typically treats with two of her more common themes, namely: the realities of women's lives and concerns in Georgian-Regency England; and, a 'comedy of manners' among her characters, each of whom would justify him/herself as behaving always of the highest standards of polite manners --even when their actual behaviours, for some, appear otherwise.

In the opening paragraph the main character, Emma Woodhouse, is described as "handsome, clever, and rich" and, rather spoiled. And, it turns out, she overvalues her personal judgement and skills at human match-making; and, she is naive --clueless, even-- about the effects of her social machinations on others. Prior to starting the novel, Austen wrote, "I am going to take a heroine whom no-one but myself will much like."

X--X

RE: continue re P&P:

AL1>TisATruth
ep<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7

The novel opens with the line, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." The arrival of such a man in the neighbourhood greatly excites Mrs. Bennet, whose sole interest in life is to see her five daughters married. The wealthy young man in question, Mr. Bingley, has leased the Netherfield estate and plans to settle for a while. His two sisters, a friend and his brother-in-law are staying with him.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

>(Her opening line to her first major work is set out here; thus, Jane Austen drafted and affixed into English literature one of the most recognized of all opening lines for all novels; arguably, it is the most memorable. Its comedic irony is obvious without reading the next word of the story. ^Nw^However, its magical capture, in one line, of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.)

//The story presents truth of reality as can be conveyed only in fiction —from the mythos found in the imagination of the preeminently talented writer.)

//in this case the life of one woman and of several women of the Geo -preRegency England

//ever written to begin novels; //of all first lines ever written by authors to open their novels; //preeminent one //foremost

vvvvv-vvvvvvvv

Plot summary

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

>>(The author's opening line to her first major work is set out here (above); thus, Jane Austen penned into English literature one of the most recognized of all opening lines for a novel; arguably, it is the most memorable. Its comedic irony is obvious without reading another word; RE: continue re P&P:

ep<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7 (con)

The novel opens with the line, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." The arrival of such a man in the neighbourhood greatly excites Mrs. Bennet, whose sole interest in life is to see her five daughters married. The wealthy young man in question, Mr. Bingley, has leased the Netherfield estate and plans to settle for a while. His two sisters, a friend and his brother-in-law are staying with him.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

>(Her opening line to her first major work is set out here; thus, Jane Austen drafted and affixed into English literature one of the most recognized of all opening lines for all novels; arguably, it is the most memorable. Its comedic irony is obvious without reading the next word of the story. ^Nw^However, its magical capture, in one line, of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.)

//The story presents truth of reality as can be conveyed only in fiction —from the mythos found in the imagination of the preeminently talented writer.)

//in this case the life of one woman and of several women of the Geo -preRegency England

//ever written to begin novels; //of all first lines ever written by authors to open their novels; //preeminent one //foremost

vvvvv-vvvvvvvv

Plot summary "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

>>>>>(The author's opening line to her first major work is set out above; thus, Jane Austen penned into English literature one of the most recognized of all opening lines for a novel; arguably, it is by now the most memorable. Its comedic irony is obvious without reading another word; but it's capture, in one 'magical' line, of the essence of an entire story requires reading the story completely to prove.) //, and to behold.)^^^^^^^^^^Nw?^)

// of the story. It's capture of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.)

//However, its magical capture, in one line, of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.) //drafted and affixed

The news that a vacant manor, Netherfield Park, has been "taken by a young man of large fortune" causes a stir in the nearby village of Longbourn, especially in the Bennet household. And soon is learned the young man's critical status: single; and his name: Mr. Charles Bingley. (The Bennets have five unmarried daughters: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia —oldest to youngest— and Mrs. Bennet is desperate to see them all married.) Mr. Bennet pays the necessary social call on Mr. Bingley; who reciprocates by calling upon the Bennets; then all the Bennets attend a village ball to which Mr. Bingley has agreed to appear. He appears, is very taken with Jane, and dances with her twice. Obvious to all, he enjoys himself and his new company, and proves a most popular young man at the ball. Contrarily, Bingley's two sisters and his close friend Mr. Darcy are obviously bored with the ball, which causes the local populace to view them as arrogant; Mr. Darcy makes an especially obnoxious impression by openly refusing to dance with Elizabeth.

xx---xx

// of the story. C

//However, its magical capture, in one line, of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.) //drafted and affixed

The news that a vacant manor, Netherfield Park, has been "taken by a young man of large fortune" causes a stir in the nearby village of Longbourn, especially in the Bennet household. And soon is learned the young man's critical status: single; and his name: Mr. Charles Bingley. (The Bennets have five unmarried daughters: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia —oldest to youngest— and Mrs. Bennet is desperate to see them all married.) Mr. Bennet pays the necessary social call on Mr. Bingley; who reciprocates by calling upon the Bennets; then all the Bennets attend a village ball to which Mr. Bingley has agreed to appear. He appears, is very taken with Jane, and dances with her twice. Obvious to all, he enjoys himself and his new company, and proves a most popular young man at the ball. Contrarily, Bingley's two sisters and his close friend Mr. Darcy are obviously bored with the ball, which causes the local populace to view them as arrogant; Mr. Darcy makes an especially obnoxious impression by openly refusing to dance with Elizabeth.

xx---xx

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (Dec, 2008): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////

RobertFrost
revison notes re Robt Frost

1 prep
---re: RobertFrost 120908:

Adult years "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life — It goes on" -- Robert Frost

In 1894 he sold his first poem, "My Butterfly: An Elegy" (published in the November 8, 1894 edition of the New York Independent) for fifteen dollars. Proud of this accomplishment, he proposed marriage to Elinor Miriam White, but she demurred, wanting to finish college (at St. Lawrence University) before they married. Frost then went on an excursion to the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia, and asked Elinor again upon his return. Having graduated, she agreed, and they were married at Harvard University, which he attended for two years.

He did well, but left to support his growing family. Grandfather Frost (William Frost, Sr.) purchased a farm for the young couple in Derry, New Hampshire, shortly before his death. Frost worked on the farm for nine years. He wrote early in the mornings, producing many of the poems that would later become famous. His attempts at farming were not successful, and Frost returned to education as an English teacher at Pinkerton Academy from 1906 to 1911, then at the New Hampshire Normal School (now Plymouth State University) in Plymouth, New Hampshire.

In 1912, Frost sailed with his family to Great Britain, living first in Glasgow, before settling in Beaconsfield, outside London. His first book of poetry, A Boy's Will, was published the next year. In England he made some important acquaintances, including Edward Thomas (a member of the group known as the Dymock Poets), T.E. Hulme, and Ezra Pound. Pound would become the first American to write a (favorable) review of Frost's work. Surrounded by his peers, Frost wrote some of his best work while in England.

As World War I began, Frost returned to America in 1915. He bought a farm in Franconia, New Hampshire, where he launched a career of writing, teaching, and lecturing. This family-farm homestead at Franconia, which served as his summer home until 1938, is maintained today as 'The Frost Place', a museum and poetry conference site. During the years 1916-20, 1923–24, and 1927-1938, Frost was professor of English at Amherst College, Massachusetts, notably encouraging his students to account for the sounds of the human voice in their craft.

From 1921 to 1963 Frost, with few exceptions, spent each summer and fall teaching at the Bread Loaf School of English of Middlebury College, the mountain campus, at Ripton, Vermont. The Bread Loaf Writers' Conference gained renown during --and because of-- Frost's tenure there. The college now owns and maintains Robert Frost's farm as a national historic site near the Bread Loaf campus. In 1921, Frost accepted a fellowship teaching post at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where he resided until 1927.[3] In 1924, he accepted a lifetime appointment at the University of Michigan as a Fellow in Letters.[3] The Robert Frost Ann Arbor home is now situated at The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Frost returned to Amherst in 1927. In 1940 he bought a five-acre plot in South Miami, Florida, naming it Pencil Pines; he spent winters there for the rest of his life.[4]

Frost was 86 when he spoke and performed a reading of his poetry at the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy on January 20, 1961. Some two years later he died, of complications from prostate surgery, in Boston, on January 29, 1963. He was buried at the Old Bennington Cemetery in Bennington, Vermont. His epitaph reads, "I had a lover's quarrel with the world."

Harvard's 1965 alumni directory indicates that Frost received an honorary degree there; he also received honorary degrees from Bates College and Oxford and Cambridge universities, and he was the first to receive two honorary degrees from Dartmouth College. During his lifetime, the Robert Frost Middle School in Fairfax, Virginia, as well as the main library of Amherst College, were named after him.

Frost's poems are critiqued in the "Anthology of Modern American Poetry", Oxford University Press, where it is noted that behind a sometimes charmingly familiar and rural façade, Frost's poetry frequently presents pessimistic and menacing undertones which are not often analyzed or recognized.[5]

[edit] Personal life

In 1894 he sold his first poem, "My Butterfly: An Elegy" (published in the November 8, 1894 edition of the New York Independent) for fifteen dollars. Proud of this accomplishment he proposed marriage to Elinor Miriam White, but she demurred, wanting to finish college (at St. Lawrence University) before they married. Frost then went on an excursion to the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia, and asked Elinor again upon his return. Having graduated she agreed, and they were married at Harvard University, where he attended liberal arts studies for two years.

He did well at Harvard, but left to support his growing family. Grandfather Frost, William Frost, Sr., had, shortly before his death, purchased a farm for the young couple in Derry, New Hampshire; and Robert worked the farm for nine years, while writing early in the mornings and producing many of the poems that would later become famous. Ultimately his farming proved unsuccessful and he returned to education as an English teacher, at Pinkerton Academy from 1906 to 1911, then at the New Hampshire Normal School (now Plymouth State University) in Plymouth, New Hampshire.

In 1912 Frost sailed with his family to Great Britain, living first in Glasgow before settling in Beaconsfield outside London. His first book of poetry, A Boy's Will, was published the next year. In England he made some important acquaintances, including Edward Thomas (a member of the group known as the Dymock Poets), T.E. Hulme, and Ezra Pound. Pound would become the first American to write a (favorable) review of Frost's work. Surrounded by his peers, Frost wrote some of his best work while in England.

As World War I began, Frost returned to America in 1915. He bought a farm in Franconia, New Hampshire, where he launched a career of writing, teaching, and lecturing. This family homestead served as his summer home until 1938, and is maintained today as 'The Frost Place', a museum and poetry conference site at Franconia. During the years 1916-20, 1923–24, and 1927-1938, Frost taught English at Amherst College, Massachusetts, notably encouraging his students to account for the sounds of the human voice in their writing.

For forty two years, from 1921 to 1963, Frost spent almost every summer and fall teaching at the Bread Loaf School of English of Middlebury College, at the mountain campus at Ripton, Vermont. He is credited as a major influence upon the development of the school and its writing programs; the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference gained renown during Frost's tenure there. The college now owns and maintains his former Ripton farmstead as a national historic site near the Bread Loaf campus. In 1921 Frost accepted a fellowship teaching post at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where he resided until 1927; while there he was awarded a lifetime appointment at the University as a Fellow in Letters. The Robert Frost Ann Arbor home is now situated at The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Frost returned to Amherst in 1927. In 1940 he bought a five-acre plot in South Miami, Florida, naming it Pencil Pines; he spent his winters there for the rest of his life.

Harvard's 1965 alumni directory indicates Frost received an honorary degree there. He also received honorary degrees from Bates College and from Oxford and Cambridge universities; and he was the first person to receive two honorary degrees from Dartmouth College. During his lifetime the Robert Frost Middle School in Fairfax, Virginia, and the main library of Amherst College were named after him. Frost was 86 when he spoke and performed a reading of his poetry at the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy on January 20, 1961. Some two years later, on January 29, 1963, he died, in Boston, of complications from prostate surgery. He was buried at the Old Bennington Cemetery in Bennington, Vermont. His epitaph reads, "I had a lover's quarrel with the world."

Frost's poems are critiqued in the "Anthology of Modern American Poetry", Oxford University Press, where it is mentioned that behind a sometimes charmingly familiar and rural façade, Frost's poetry frequently presents pessimistic and menacing undertones which often are not recognized nor analyzed.

X___---X

GS64>MrDarcy
ep<>4<>4<>4/DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4

Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy - main male protagonist. More than twenty-six years old, >>>S/B: //Fitzwilliam Darcy - main male protagonist. At twenty-eight years old......

Lady Catherine De Bourgh - Darcy's widowed aunt, mistress of Rosings Park in Kent and Mr. Collins' patroness. She is arrogant about her social rank, but takes a controlling interest in the personal affairs of those beneath her, particularly the Collinses. She intends Darcy to marry her daughter, Anne.

Anne De Bourgh- Said to be the daughter of Lady Catherine De Bourgh, Anne is portrayed as fragile and poorly, yet in rather a good disposition, due to the wealth she is expected to accumulate upon an arranged marriage to Fitzwilliam Darcy. All does not go to Lady Catherine's plans.->>>S/B:

Anne De Bourgh//- Daughter of Lady Catherine De Bourgh; Anne is portrayed as fragile and poor in health. Lady Catherine expects to combine the wealths of the family estates Pemberly and Rosings upon an arranged marriage of Anne to Fitzwilliam Darcy. All does not go to Lady Catherine's plans.

xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfinis

ep<>4<>4<>4/DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4<>4

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (Dec, 2008): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////

Perpetua

The record of the "Passion of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas, and their Companions" is one of the great treasures of martyr literature, a document which is said to preserve the actual words of the martyrs and their friends. In the year 203, during the

--Year-- Their date of their martyrdom is traditionally given as March 6, 203. The association of the martyrdom with a birthday festival of the Emperor Geta, however, would seem to place it after 209, when Geta was made caesar, though before 211, when he was assassinated. The Acta notes that the martyrdom occurred in the year when Minucius Timinianus was proconsul in the Roman province of Africa, but as Timinianus is not otherwise attested in history, this information does not clarify the date.

--Martyrdom--

The details of the martyrdoms survive in both Latin and Greek texts (see below). Saint Perpetua's account is apparently historical; it is the earliest surviving text written by a Christian woman. After a brief introduction (chapters i–ii), the narrative and visions of Perpetua (iii–1x) are followed by the vision of Saturus (xi–xiii); the account of their deaths, written by an eyewitness, are appended  (xiv–xxi).

Medieval Sourcebook: St.Perpetua: The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity 203

Vibia Perpetua, was executed in the arena in Carthage on 7 March 203. The account of her martyrdom - technically a Passion -is apparently historical and has special interest as much of it was written [section 3-10], in Latin by Perpetua herself before her death. This makes it one of the earliest pieces of writing by a Christian woman.

Perpetua rvsd

--Year--

The date of their martyrdom is traditionally given as March 6, 203; but Wace reports uncertainty in establishing the actual historical year. He indicates perhaps 202 or 203 (see below). {} The association of the martyrdom with a birthday festival of the Emperor Geta, however, would seem to place it after 209, when Geta was --

--Martyrdom--

Traditionally, Saint Perpetua's story is accepted as the earliest account, as self-narrative, of a martyr's passion experienced by a woman Christian. The account(s) as written —there are three collected copies, according to Wace— may, or may not, be historical, but as yet there are no source(s) that constitute or identify a 'surviving' document. Nor is there any secondary source cited that authenticates the provenance of the texts of the collected copies. Wace mentions that "some" believe that Tertullian (ca.160 - ca.220), wrote the original accounts of these martyrs, as self-narratives, because the style is "very similar to his". Tertullian was a prolific writer of Christian apologetics and, at this same time, was thriving in his writing career in the same locale of these passion events.

Details of the martyrdoms survive in both Latin and Greek texts (see below). The Medieval Sourcebook: St. Perpetua: The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity,(see below), presents, after a brief introduction, the 'self-narrative' and visions of Perpetua, in chapters 3–10; these are followed by the visions of Saturus (chapters 11–13), also as 'self-narrative'. Finally, the account of their deaths, traditionally as written by an (unidentified) third party, is appended, as 'eyewitness' narrative, through chapter 21.

(Also,Ter was among the extreme few among his times who practiced composition and writing on a near-daily basis; this placed him among the very fewest of those select few who were educated to read but who did not routinely write; writing then was routinely assigned to trained secretraries and scribes. Further, the writing materials of the day were not casually available for ease of routine writing by even the educated layman.)
 * Henry Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies.

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (Dec, 2008): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////

The House of Tudor was a prominent European royal house. Founded by Henry Tudor, the family was paternally Welsh but first rose to take the Kingdom of England in the 15th century due to a claim through their maternal line to genealogical supremacy of the House of Lancaster branch of the House of Plantagenet in the Wars of the Roses. The house also ruled their native Principality of Wales, as well as asserting full authority over the Kingdom of Ireland; they also held a nominal claim to the Kingdom of France although they never tried to make substance out of it.

In total, five or six Tudor monarchs ruled their domains from 1485 until 1603. They merged their native Wales into England during 1542. Compared to dynasties which came before them, the Tudor dynasty was quite short lived, lasting just over a century. This was due to problems with creating ample issue, Henry VIII of England famously married six times to try and counter this. The line died out with Elizabeth I of England who died issueless; all claims of the Tudor dynasty passed to her cousin James of the House of Stuart.

H of T revsd\/

The House of Tudor was a prominent European royal house that ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms from 1485 until 1603. Founded by Henry Tudor, who, though his paternal family was Welsh —his grandfather was Owen Tudor— was himself (through his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort) also a legitimized descendent of the royal House of Lancaster. Thus, Henry Tudor rose to capture the throne of the Kingdom —and to end the Wars of the Roses— while pursuing his claim for the (cadet) House of Lancaster of successional supremacy within the dynastic House of Plantagenet. He reigned as Henry VII until his death in 1509. The Tudors also ruled their native Wales, achieving through the initiatives of Henry VIII full union of England and the Principality of Wales in 1542 (Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542); and they asserted full authority of English claims over the Kingdom of Ireland. They also maintained the traditional (i.e., nominal) claims to the Kingdom of France, but none tried to make substance of it.

In total, five Tudor monarchs ruled their domains for just over a century (Lady Jane Grey not counted here as having ever ruled). All five were greatly concerned with the personal and dynastic challenges of producing heir(s), preferably male, for maintaining the throne —while fending off rivals who were real or perceived threats to their lives and the preservation of the dynasty. Henry VIII famously married six times attempting to guarantee one (and more) healthy male heirs. He did not succeed; or, if so, only very partially; the only male heir to survive him, Edward VI, died young, at age 15, after 'ruling' (in regency, and in near-chaos) for only six years.

The Tudor line failed in 1603 with the death of Elizabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' of England, who (ultimately) decided not to marry and died without issue. Through secret negotiations with her cousin James, King of Scotland, and of the House of Stuart, (and whose great-grandmother was a Tudor) Elizabeth arranged the ease of his ascending the English throne —as James I of England— after her death (see Elizabeth I of England, 'Death').

the agreement of ____ she passed all claims of the Tudor dynasty to her cousin James, the king of Scotland and of the House of Stuart.

H of T revsd/\

in the 15th century due ..through their maternal line to from 1485 until 1603. In total, five or six Tudor monarchs This was famously due to sircumstances which prevented creating ample issue. They merged their native Wales into England during 1542. Compared to dynasties which came before them, the Tudor dynasty was quite short lived, lasting just over a century. x x

House of Tudor —Ascent to the throne
The Tudors descended matrilineally from John Beaufort, one of the illegitimate children of 14th Century English Prince John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third surviving son of Edward III of England), by Gaunt's long-term mistress Katherine Swynford. The descendants of an illegitimate child of English Royalty would normally have no claim on the throne, but the situation was complicated when Gaunt and Swynford eventually married in 1396 (25 years after John Beaufort's birth). In view of the marriage, the church retroactively declared the Beauforts legitimate via a papal bull the same year (also enshrined in an Act of Parliament in 1397). A subsequent proclamation by John of Gaunt's legitimate son, King Henry IV, also recognized the Beauforts' legitimacy, but declared them ineligible to ever inherit the throne. Nevertherless, the Beauforts remained closely allied with Gaunt's other descendants, the Royal House of Lancaster.

John Beaufort's granddaughter Lady Margaret Beaufort, a considerable heiress, was married to Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond. Tudor was the son of Welsh courtier Owain Tewdr (anglicised to "Owen Tudor") and Katherine of Valois, widowed Queen Consort of the Lancastrian King Henry V. Edmund Tudor and his siblings were either illegitimate, or the product of a secret marriage, and owed their fortunes to the goodwill of their legitimate half-brother King Henry VI. When the House of Lancaster fell from power, the Tudors followed.

Edmund's son Henry Tudor grew up in exile in Brittany, while his mother Lady Margaret remained in England and remarried, quietly advancing the cause of her son in a Kingdom now ruled by the rival House of York. With most of the House of Lancaster now dead, Henry proclaimed himself the Lancastrian heir. Capitalising on the unpopularity of King Richard III, his mother was able to forge an alliance with discontented Yorkists in support of her son, who landed in England and defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, proclaiming himself King Henry VII. By marrying Richard III's niece, Elizabeth of York, Henry VII successfully bolstered his own disputed claim to the throne, whilst moving to end the Wars of the Roses by presenting England with a new dynasty, of both Lancastrian and Yorkist descent. The new dynasty was symbolized by the "Tudor Rose", a fusion of the White Rose symbol of the House of York, and the Red Rose of the House of Lancaster.

House of Tudor —Ascent to the throne
rvsd The Tudors descended matrilineally from John Beaufort, who was the first of four illegitimate children born to John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, and Katherine Swynford, his long-term mistress whom he married late in life, in 1396. John of Gaunt was one of the wealthiest and the most powerful of political royalty of his time in England. Nearing the end of his life amid what he viewed as very lethal politics portending for his immediate descendents of royal blood..

Illegitimate children, even of royalty, and their descendants would have no claim of normal inheritance of the father's estate. Thus, nearing the end of life and fearful of the (lethal, he worried) intentions of of King Richard II toward his royal sons --their were four: Henry Bolingbroke, Thomas, ___, and ___--

this marriage in 1396 was critical to John's ambitions to preserve his vast holdings and wealth and to securely bequeath same to his descendents —to both those born legitimate or made legitimate. John's next step was to obtain King Richard II's endorsement of his petition to the Pope to have his Beaufort family children declared legitimate. This was all accomplished via a papal bull, approved the same year, then enshrined in an Act of Parliament in 1397.

However, once John's own royal line ascended the throne, as his son, Henry IV, in 1399,

The descendants of an illegitimate child of English Royalty would normally have no claim on the throne, but the situation was complicated when Gaunt and Swynford eventually married in 1396 (25 years after John Beaufort's birth). In view of the marriage, the church retroactively declared the Beauforts legitimate via a papal bull the same year (also enshrined in an Act of Parliament in 1397). A subsequent proclamation by John of Gaunt's legitimate son, King Henry IV, also recognized the Beauforts' legitimacy, but declared them ineligible to ever inherit the throne. Nevertherless, the Beauforts remained closely allied with Gaunt's other descendants, the Royal House of Lancaster.

>one of the illegitimate children of 14th Century English Prince John of aunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third surviving son of Edward III of England), by Gaunt's long-term mistress Katherine Swynford.

>>>>>>John of Gaunt (d. 1399) was a favored son of King Edward III who —with his legitimate descendents— was raised by Edward in order of succession to above the descendents —the House of Mortimer—of Edmund of __, Edward's 2nd son.

from Henry VII-122708

Nonetheless, John ensured that his and Katherine's children were legitimized. His nephew, King Richard II, issued Letters Patent, confirmed by an Act of Parliament in 1397, that legitimized John of Gaunt's Beaufort children. Richard's cousin and successor, Henry IV, son of John of Gaunt and his first wife Blanche of Lancaster, issued an order disinheriting his Beaufort half-siblings from the throne. The legality of Henry's order proved doubtful, given the Beauforts were previously legitimized by an Act of Parliament. In any event, Henry VII was not the only monarch descended from the union of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. The Yorkist kings were as well, as Joan Beaufort, only daughter of the Gaunt-Swynford union, was the mother of Cecily Neville, wife of Richard Duke of York and mother of Edward IV and Richard III.

x x x

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (Jan, 2009): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////

Dukes of Aquitaine under French kings
The Carolingian Kings again appointed Dukes of Aquitaine, first in 852, and again since 866. Later on, this Duchy was also called Guyenne.


 * House of Poitiers (Ramnulfids)
 * Ranulph I (852–866), also Count of Poitiers. No duke 866-887
 * Ranulph II (887–890), son of previous, also Count of Poitiers, called himself King of Aquitaine from 888 until his death.
 * Ebalus the Bastard (also called Manzer) (890–893), illegitimate son of Ranulph, also Count of Poitiers and Auvergne.


 * House of Auvergne
 * William I the Pious (893–918), also Count of Auvergne
 * William II the Younger (918–926), nephew of William I, also Count of Auvergne.
 * Acfred (926–927), brother of William II, also Count of Auvergne.


 * House of Poitiers (Ramnulfids)
 * Ebalus the Bastard (927–932), for a second time.


 * House of Rouergue
 * Raymond I Pons (932–936)
 * Raymond II (936–955)


 * House of Capet
 * Hugh the Great (955–962)


 * House of Poitiers (Ramnulfids)
 * William III Towhead (962–963), son of Ebalus, also Count of Poitiers and Auvergne.
 * William IV Iron Arm (963–995), son of previous, also Count of Poitiers.
 * William V the Great (995–1030), son of previous, also Count of Poitiers.
 * William VI the Fat (1030–1038), 1st son of previous, also Count of Poitiers.
 * Eudes (or Odo) (1038–1039), 2nd son of William V of Aquitaine, also Count of Poitiers and Duke of Gascony.
 * William VII the Eagle (1039–1058), 3rd son of William V of Aquitaine also Count of Poitiers.
 * William VIII (1058–1086), 4th son of William V of Aquitaine, also Count of Poitiers and Duke of Gascony.
 * William IX the Troubadour (or the Younger) (1086–1127), son of previous, also Count of Poitiers and Duke of Gascony.
 * William X the Saint (1127–1137), son of previous, also Count of Poitiers and Duke of Gascony.
 * Eleanor (1137–1189), daughter of previous, also Countess of Poitiers and Duchess of Gascony, married the kings of France and England in succession.
 * Louis the Younger (1137–1152), also King of France, Duke in right of his wife.


 * House of Plantagenet


 * Henry I (1152–1172), also King of England, Duke in right of his wife Eleanor.
 * Richard I Lionheart (1172–1184), also King of England, Duke and regent in right of his mother.
 * Richard I Lionheart (1189–1196), (succeeding on the death of his mother, Eleanor)
 * Otto of Brunswick (1196–1199),
 * John I (1199–1216) Also King of England, Duke in right of his mother until 1204,
 * Henry II (1216–1254), also King of England.
 * Edward I Longshanks (1254–1306), also King of England.
 * Edward II (1306–1325), also King of England.
 * Edward III (1325–1362), also King of England.

zzz--- zzz---

In 1337, King Philip VI of France reclaimed the fief of Aquitaine from Edward III, King of England and Duke of Aquitaine. Edward in turn claimed the title of King of France, by right of his descent from his grandfather King Philip. This triggered the Hundred Years' War, in which both the Plantagenets and Valois claimed the supremacy over Aquitaine due to the King of France.
 * Plantagenet rulers of Aquitaine==

In 1360 both sides signed the Treaty of Bretigny, in which Edward renounced the French crown but remained sovereign Lord of Aquitaine (rather than merely Duke). However, when the treaty was broken in 1369, English claims and the war resumed.

In 1362, King Edward III, as Lord of Aquitaine, made his eldest son Edward, Prince of Wales Prince of Aquitaine.


 * Edward the Black Prince (1362–1372), 1st son of Edward III, also Prince of Wales.

In 1390, King Richard II appointed his uncle John of Gaunt as Duke of Aquitaine. That title passed on to John's descendants.


 * John II (1390–1399), 2nd son of Edward III, also Duke of Lancaster.
 * Henry III (1399), inherited the Duchy from his father, but ceded it to his son upon becoming King of England.
 * Henry IV (1399–1422), son of previous, also King of England 1413–1422.

Henry continued to rule over Aquitaine as King of England and Lord of Aquitaine. He succeeded in obtaining the French crown for his family by the Treaty of Troyes in 1420. Henry's baby son Henry VI became King of England and France in 1422, but gradually lost control of France until 1453.

The Valois Kings of France, claiming supremacy over Aquitaine, granted the title of Duke to their heirs, the Dauphins.
 * Valois and Bourbon Dukes of Aquitaine==


 * John II of France (1345–1350), son of Philip VI of France, acceded in 1350 as King of France.
 * Charles (1392?–1401), son of Charles VI of France, Dauphin.
 * Louis (1401–1415), son of Charles VI of France, Dauphin.

With the end of the Hundred Years War, Aquitaine returned to direct rule of the King of France and remained in the possession of the King. Only occasionally was the Duchy or the title of Duke granted to another member of the dynasty.


 * Charles, Duc de Berry (1469–1472), son of Charles VII of France.
 * Xavier (1753–1754), second son of Louis, Dauphin of France.
 * Charles-Gonzalve de Bourbon, (1972–2000), son of Jacques-Henri VI, duke of Anjou and Segovia, head of the house of Bourbon

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (25Jan, 2009): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////// //////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////

BM2>narrativeMode
ep<>2<>2<>2Narrative mode<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2<>2

>>>>S/B \/: The narrative mode (also known as the mode of narration) is an attribute of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical work; it describes the method used by the author(s) to convey the story to the audience. It encompasses several (overlapping) devices of the story, the two most important being: the narrative point-of-view (also known as the viewpoint), which identifies the person whose perspective the story is viewed through; and the narrative voice, which determines how the story is expressed to the audience.

The person whose point of view is used to relate the story is the "narrator," the character developed by the author for this purpose. The narrative point-of-view is the device which relates the experience of the narrator-character —not that of the author of the story, although in some cases, especially in non-fiction, the narrator and the author may be the same person. In fiction, authors typically do not inject their own voices, which challenges suspension of disbelief. The story-line should encourage the reader to identify with the narrator, not with the author.

xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfinis

EP17 >Invisible Man/Ellison

It was the kind of symbolism which Ellison first encountered in the poem The Waste Land. [4], by T. S. Eliot. Ellison had read this poem as a freshman at the Tuskegee Institute and was immediately impressed by The Waste Land's ability to merge his two greatest passions, that of music and of literature, for it was in The Waste Land that he first saw jazz set to words. When asked later about what he had learned from the poem, Ellison //commented //s/b: responded:             //responded that imagery//, and also improvisation, the type of techniques he had only before seen in jazz. //imagery//, and also improvisation --techniques he before had seen only in jazz. Ellison always believed that he would be a musician first and a writer second, but acknowledged that writing had provided him a growing satisfaction. It was a covert process Ellison conceded, or as he put it in his introduction to Shadow and Act "a refusal of hand right to let his left hand know what it was doing."

It was the kind of symbolism which Ellison first encountered in the poem The Waste Land. [4], by T. S. Eliot. Ellison had read this poem as a freshman at the Tuskegee Institute and was immediately impressed by The Waste Land's ability to merge his two greatest passions, that of music and of literature, for it was in The Waste Land that he first saw jazz set to words. When

asked later about what he had learned from the poem, Ellison// responded: imagery, and also improvisation --techniques he before had seen only in jazz.//

responded: imagery, and also improvisation --techniques he had seen before only in jazz.

Ellison always believed that he would be a musician first and a writer second, but acknowledged that writing had provided him a growing satisfaction. It was a covert process Ellison conceded, or as he put it in his introduction to Shadow and Act "a refusal of hand right to let his left hand know what it was doing."

X--X

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (Jan, 2009): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////

Matilda of England

Empress Matilda
Matilda of England, sometimes Maud or Maude; (c.7 February 1102 – 10 September 1167); was the daughter and (dispossessed) heir of Henry I of England. Matilda and her younger brother, William Adelin, were the only legitimate children of Henry. After her brother's death, Matilda was the last surviving legal heir of Henry to the English throne, and the last heir from the paternal line of her grandfather William the Conqueror.

Early on, Matilda was betrothed then married to Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, wherein she acquired the title Empress; later she was married to Geoffrey of Anjou, by whom she became the mother of Henry II of England.

Matilda was the first female ruler de facto of the Kingdom of England, but she was never crowned. Because she failed to (legally and politically) secure the crown the length of her rule was very brief —a few weeks in 1141, and she is normally excluded from lists of English monarchs. Instead, her rival (and cousin) Stephen of Blois is routinely listed as monarch for the entire period, 1135-1154, of their warring rivalry for the throne. Those years of unrest and civil war in England became known as The Anarchy. However, she did secure her inheritance of the County of Normandy —by dint of the military feats of her husband Geoffrey— and she campaigned unstintingly for her son's inheritance, and lived to see him overcome all, and ascend the throne of England, in 1154, as Henry II.

(Because many of her contemporaries (or near contemporaries) were also called Matilda, in Latin texts Matilda was sometimes called Maude to distinguish her. This was a modernised spelling of the Norman-French form of her name, Mahaut.)

Early Life and First Marriage: Holy Roman Empress
Matilda was the firsborn of only two children to Henry I of England and his wife Matilda (nee Edith) of Scotland. Her maternal grandparents were Malcolm III of Scotland and Saint Margaret of Scotland. Margaret was a daughter of Edward the Exile and granddaughter of Edmund II of England. (Most historians believe Matilda was born at Winchester, but one, John Fletcher (1990), argues for the possibility of the royal palace at Sutton Courtenay in Oxfordshire.)

When she was seven years old, Matilda was betrothed to Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor; at age nine she was sent to Germany to begin training for the life of Empress consort. The royal couple was married at Worms on January 7, 1114, and soon Matilda accompanied her husband on tours to Rome and Tuscany. After a time, the young wife of the Emperor was popularly accepted to act as regent in his absence. Emperor Henry died in 1125; the imperial couple apparently had no surviving offspring, but Hermann of Tournai states that Maud (Matilda) bore a child that lived only a short while. Despite being popularly known by the title "Empress" from her first marriage, Matilda's right to the title was dubious. She was never crowned Holy Roman Empress by a legitimate Pope —which ceremony was normally required to achieve the title; indeed, in later years she encouraged chroniclers to believe she had been crowned by the Pope. Contemporarily, she was called German Queen by her husband's bishops, while her formal title was recorded as "Queen of the Romans". Still, "Empress" was arguably an appropriate courtesy title for the wife of the Emperor who himself had been crowned by the Pope.

From the year 1120, when her brother (William Adelin) died —he drowned in the disasterous wreck of the White Ship— Matilda became the only legitimate heir of her father King Henry. Like Matilda, her cousin Stephen of Blois was a grandchild of William (the Conqueror) of Normandy; but her paternal line made her senior in right of succession to his maternal line.

Second marriage: Countess of Anjou and Duchess of Normandy
Matilda returned to England a young widow, age 23, and a dowager "Empress" —a status of considerable pride to her. There Henry named her his heir to both the English throne and his lordship of Normandy. Then Henry saw to it that the Anglo-Norman barons (including Stephen of Blois) were sworn (several times) to accept Matilda as ruler if Henry died without a male heir.

Henry then arranged a second marriage for Matilda; as he aimed to achieve a peace between the fractious barons of Normandy and Anjou. On 17 June 1128, the Empress Matilda, age 26, was married to Geoffrey of Anjou, a young man eleven years her junior and who was Count of Maine and heir apparent to (his father) the Count of Anjou —which title he soon was to acquire, and by which Matilda became Countess of Anjou. Geoffrey called himself "Plantagenet" from the broom flower (planta genista) he had adopted as his personal emblem. Hence did Plantagenet become the dynastic name of that powerful line of English kings who descended from Matilda and Geoffrey.

Matilda's marriage with Geoffrey was troubled, with frequent long separations, but she bore him three sons and survived him. The eldest son, Henry, was born on 5 March 1133. In 1134 she nearly died in childbirth of her second son (Geoffrey, Count of Nantes). A third son (William, Count of Poitou) was born on 1 December 1135.

When her father died in Normandy, on 1 December 1135, Matilda and Geoffrey were in Anjou —she was giving birth that same day; and, crucially, she was too far away from events rapidly unfolding in both England and Normandy. Stephen of Blois rushed to England upon learning of Henry's death; in London he moved quickly to seize the day (carpe diem) and to grasp the crown of England from its legally appointed heir. He had usurped the legitimate power in England and was proceeding to do the same in Normandy.

But Matilda was game to contest Stephen in both realms; she and husband Geoffrey entered Normandy and claimed her inheritance. Progress was uneven at first, but she persevered; even so, it wasn't until 1139 that Matilda felt secure enough in Normandy to turn her attentions to invading England and to fighting Stephen directly (see below). In Normandy, Geoffrey secured all fiefdoms west and south of the Seine by 1143; in January 1144, he crossed the Seine and took Rouen without resistance. He assumed the title Duke of Normandy by right of conquest; and Matilda became Duchess of Normandy. Geoffrey and Matilda held the duchy conjointly until 1149, then ceded it to their son, Henry, which event was soon ratified by King Louis VII of France.

Struggle for throne of England
On the death of her father, Henry I, in 1135, Matilda expected to succeed to the throne of England, but her cousin, Stephen of Blois, a nephew of Henry I, usurped the throne with the support of most of the barons, breaking the oath he had previously made to defend her rights. The civil war which followed was bitter and prolonged, with neither side gaining the ascendancy for long, but it was not until 1139 that Matilda could command the military strength necessary to challenge Stephen within his own realm. Stephen's wife, the Countess of Boulogne who was also named Matilda, was the Empress's maternal cousin. During the war, Matilda's most loyal and capable supporter was her illegitimate half-brother, Robert of Gloucester.

Matilda's greatest triumph came in April 1141, when her forces defeated and captured King Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln (1141). He was made a prisoner and effectively deposed.

Her advantage lasted only a few months. When she marched on London, the city was ready to welcome her and support a coronation. However, she refused the citizens' request to have their taxes halved. On 24 June 1141, she found the gates of London shut and the civil war reignited. By November, Stephen was free, having been exchanged for the captured Robert of Gloucester, Matilda's half-brother, and a year later, the tables were turned when Matilda was besieged at Oxford but escaped to Wallingford, supposedly by fleeing across the snow-covered land in a white cape. In 1141 she had escaped Devizes in a similarly clever manner, by disguising herself as a corpse and being carried out for burial. In 1148, Matilda and Henry returned to Normandy, following the death of Robert of Gloucester, and the reconquest of that county by her husband. Upon their arrival, Geoffrey turned Normandy over to his son, and retired to his own county of Anjou.

Matilda was born probably on 7 February 1102 to Henry I of England and his wife Matilda (born Edith) of Scotland. Her maternal grandparents were Malcolm III of Scotland and Saint Margaret of Scotland. (Margaret was a daughter of Edward the Exile and granddaughter of King Edmund Ironside of England.) Most historians believe Matilda was born at Winchester, but John Fletcher (1990) argues that it may have occurred at the royal palace at Sutton Courtenay in Oxfordshire.

The marriage was not a happy one: Matilda separated from her husband for a time, returning to her home realm until they reconciled.

f Henry I:

After Henry had defeated his brother's Norman army at Tinchebray he imprisoned Robert, initially in the Tower of London, subsequently at Devizes Castle and later at Cardiff. One day whilst out riding Robert attempted to escape from Cardiff but his horse was bogged down in a swamp and he was recaptured. To prevent further escapes Henry had Robert's eyes burnt out.>>> >>>Henry appropriated the Duchy of Normandy as a possession of the Kingdom of England and reunited his father's dominions. >>>>Even after taking control of the Duchy of Normandy //he didn't take the title of Duke//; he chose to control it as the King of England.

In 1113, Henry attempted to reduce difficulties in Normandy by betrothing his eldest son, William Adelin, to the daughter of Fulk of Jerusalem (also known as Fulk V), Count of Anjou, then a serious enemy. They were married in 1119. Eight years later, after William's untimely death, a much more momentous union was made between Henry's daughter, (the former Empress) Matilda and Fulk's son Geoffrey Plantagenet, which eventually resulted in the union of the two Realms under the Plantagenet Kings.

from Geoffrey of Anjou:

very proud of her status as an Empress (as opposed to being a mere Countess). Their marriage was a stormy one with frequent long separations, but she bore him three sons and survived him.

The year after the marriage Geoffrey's father left for Jerusalem (where he was to become king), leaving Geoffrey behind as count of Anjou. John of Marmoutier describes Geoffrey as handsome, red-headed, jovial, and a great warrior; however, Ralph of Diceto alleges that his charm concealed his cold and selfish character.


 * When King Henry I died in 1135, Matilda at once entered Normandy to claim her inheritance. The border districts submitted to her, but England chose her cousin Stephen of Blois for its king, and Normandy soon followed suit.**

When King Henry I died in 1135, Matilda at once entered Normandy to claim her inheritance. The border districts submitted to her, but England chose her cousin Stephen of Blois for its king, and Normandy soon followed suit. The following year, Geoffrey gave Ambrieres, Gorron, and Chatilon-sur-Colmont to Juhel de Mayenne, on condition that he help obtain the inheritance of Geoffrey's wife. In 1139 Matilda landed in England with 140 knights, where she was besieged at Arundel Castle by King Stephen. In the "Anarchy" which ensued, Stephen was captured at Lincoln in February, 1141, and imprisoned at Bristol. A legatine council of the English church held at Winchester in April 1141 declared Stephen deposed and proclaimed Matilda "Lady of the English". Stephen was subsequently released from prison and had himself recrowned on the anniversary of his first coronation.

During 1142 and 1143, Geoffrey secured all of Normandy west and south of the Seine, and, on 14 January 1144, he crossed the Seine and entered Rouen. He assumed the title of Duke of Normandy in the summer of 1144. In 1144, he founded an Augustine priory at Chateau-l'Ermitage in Anjou. Geoffrey held the duchy until 1149, when he and Matilda conjointly ceded it to their son, Henry, which cession was formally ratified by King Louis VII of France the following year.

from Stephen of Blois:

King of England There were three principal contenders for the succession of Henry I and one 'fancied outsider'. The least popular of these was Matilda of England, not only because she was a woman, but also because her husband Geoffrey, Count of Anjou was an enemy of the Normans. The other contenders were two men of royal birth, Robert, Earl of Gloucester and Stephen himself. The 'outsider' was the elder brother of Stephen, Theobald, Count of Blois. However, Theobald did not want the kingdom, at least not badly enough to contend for it.[1] Before the 1135 death of King Henry I of England, at his insistence, the majority of the barons of England swore to support Henry's daughter Maude, (The Empress Matilda) (granddaughter of William the Conqueror), and her claim to the throne. However, upon the king's death, Stephen — also a grandchild of The Conqueror — laid claim to the throne, stating that Henry had changed his mind on his deathbed and named Stephen as his heir. Once crowned, Stephen gained the support of the majority of the barons as well as Pope Innocent II and the first few years of his reign were peaceful, notwithstanding insurgence by the Welsh, a rebellion by King David of Scotland, and another by Baldwin de Redvers.

[edit] The Anarchy: War with Matilda Main article: The Anarchy By 1139 Stephen had lost much support and the country sank into a civil war, commonly called The Anarchy. Stephen faced the forces of Empress Matilda at several locations throughout the Kingdom including the Battle of Beverston Castle and the Battle of Lincoln. Bad omens haunted him before the Battle of Lincoln where Stephen was facing the powerful Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester (the Empress' illegitimate half-brother) and Ranulph, Earl of Chester. According to chroniclers Stephen fought bravely in the battle but was captured by a knight named William de Cahaignes (a relative of Ranulph, ancestor of the Keynes family). Stephen was defeated and he was brought before his cousin, the Empress Matilda. He was imprisoned at Bristol.

Stephen's wife rallied support amongst the people from London and the barons. The Empress Matilda was, in turn, forced out of London. With the capture of her most able lieutenant, her half-brother the Earl of Gloucester, she was eventually obliged to trade Stephen for him, and thus Stephen was restored to the throne in November of the same year.

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (15Jan, 2009): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////// //////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////\\\////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\

Persuasion (novel)

{N.B: Anne E.> born: 9Aug 1787; nineteen a/o 9Aug 1806; twentyseven a/o 9Aug 1814}

Therefore: 1. date of "Demise of the Engagement"> on or before 22Dec 1806. ...........2. eight-yr anniver. of same > on or before 22Dec 1814.

Chapter 4
1  He was not Mr. Wentworth, the former curate of Monkford, however suspicious appearances may be, but a Captain Frederick Wentworth, his brother, who being made commander in consequence of the action off St. Domingo, and not immediately employed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>had come into Somersetshire in the summer of 1806; and having no parent living, found a home for half a year (22June-22Dec), at Monkford. He was, at that time, a remarkably fine young man, with a great deal of intelligence, spirit and brilliancy; and Anne an extremely pretty girl, with gentleness, modesty, taste, and feeling. Half the sum of attraction, on either side, might have been enough, for he had nothing to do, and she had hardly any body to love; but the encounter of such lavish recommendations could not fail. >>>>>>>>>>They were gradually acquainted, and when acquainted, rapidly and deeply in love. It would be difficult to say which had seen highest perfection in the other, or which had been the happiest; she, in receiving his declarations and proposals, or he in having them accepted.

2  A short period of exquisite felicity followed, and but a short one. Troubles soon arose. Sir Walter, on being applied to, without actually withholding his consent, or saying it should never be, gave it all the negative of great astonishment, great coldness, great silence, and a professed resolution of doing nothing for his daughter. He thought it a very degrading alliance; and Lady Russell, though with more tempered and pardonable pride, received it as a most unfortunate one.

3 Anne Elliot, with all her claims of birth, beauty, and mind, to throw herself away at nineteen -- involve herself at nineteen in an engagement with a young man, who had nothing but himself to recommend him, and no hopes --- 4  Captain Wentworth had no fortune. He had been lucky in his profession; but spending freely, what had come freely, had realized nothing. But he was confident that he should soon be rich; full of life and ardour, he knew that he should soon have a ship, and soon be on a station that would lead -

5 Such opposition, as these feelings produced, was more than Anne could combat. Young and gentle as she was, it might yet

6 A few months had seen the beginning and the end of their acquaintance; but, not with a few months ended Anne's share of suffering from it. Her attachment and regrets had, for a long time, clouded every enjoyment of youth; and an early loss of bloom and spirits had been their lasting effect.

7 More than seven years were gone since this little history of sorrowful interest had reached its close; and time had softened down much, perhaps nearly all of peculiar attachment to him, but she had been too dependant on time alone: - 8 They knew not each other's opinion, either its constancy or its change, on the one leading point of Anne's conduct, for the subject was never alluded to; but Anne, at seven-and-twenty, thought very differently from what she had been made to think at nineteen. She did not blame Lady Russell, -

Please explain your reasoning for "more than EIGHT years". The author clearly states: "More than seven years were gone since this little history of sorrowful interest had reached its close;" (Chapter 4); and it seems the various calendar 'pegs' (placed and implied — by the author's narrative) indicate that she 'got it right'; ie, there doesn't appear to be any inconsistency with "more than seven years", AND, it does appear that "more than EIGHT years" doesn't fit the calculus of those calendar pegs. Do you know of language in the novel that indicates the time setting of the novel's opening is greater than eight years after the demise of Anne and Wentworth's engagement?

Edit Pile xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEDIT PILE--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEDIT PILE

DQ2>dBoard
Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (19Jan, 2009): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////// //////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////

Persuasion (novel)

CN31 >ExplOfTitle
ep<>1<>1<>1<>1/DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1

---re: Persuasion 120408:

[edit] Explanation of title The title reflects the major theme in the novel of persuasion, which has two facets. Firstly it refers to the act of persuasion as it is enforced on others; the heroine, Anne Elliot, yields to her family and Lady Russell's persuasion to refuse Wentworth's offer of marriage, to her later regret, and many more characters throughout the novel seek to persuade others or are persuaded by them. Secondly, the title refers to a state of mind held by the characters; for example, Sir Walter is of the persuasion that looks and 'old' money define a man. It also refers to the notion that people's looks improve as we find we like them better. (The title of the novel was not chosen by Austen, but rather by her older sister Cassandra; some critics believe Austen intended to name it "The Elliots", but she died before titling it.) Finally Captain Wentworth is persuaded that he can find no better woman than Anne Elliot, after being determined not to marry her. Initially he thought that determination was the most important thing a woman can possess until he realises that determination can be head-strong.

x---x (The title of the novel was not chosen by Austen, but rather by her older sister Cassandra; some critics believe Austen intended to name it "The Elliots", but she died before titling it.)

(The title of the novel was not chosen by Austen, but rather Henry Austen[citation needed], who had long been a champion of his sister's work. It was he who chose the title for this novel. Some critics believe Austen intended to name it "The Elliots", but she died before titling it.) x--x

x>>ALTERNATIVE VERBIAGE-->>>S/B \/:

Some readers of Jane Austen have found it logically tempting --more than some have found it emotionally tempting-- to make the connection that she

Explanation of Title —Variation on a Theme?
...I

(Caveat: The title of the novel was not chosen by Austen, but by her brother Henry Austen[citation needed], who had long been a champion of his sister's work. It was he who arranged the publishing of the novel after her death, apparently naming it in the process. Some critics believe Austen intended to name the novel "The Elliots", but she died before titling it.)

Readers of Jane Austen's "Persuasion" might infer she intended persuasion as the major theme of the story, and that she repeated the theme (several times) —with vignettes within the story as variations on the theme. However, there are no citations (here) of sources by Austen scholars that validate such a view. On the other hand, as the Caveat explains, there's evidence that supports the opposite view —that Austen had in mind no such explicit theme (or variations) for the story. Indeed, it appears she did not even envision the title of the story as "Persuasion". x---x

Explanation of the novel's title The title refers to the persuasion to which the heroine, Anne Elliot, has given in, to her later regret. Several other characters find themselves being persuaded or refusing to be persuaded, as well. The title of the novel was not chosen by Austen and some critics believe she had intended to name it "The Elliots", but she died before titling it. xxxx

Explanation of Title —Variation on a Theme?
.....II

Readers of "Persuasion" might infer Jane Austen intended 'persuasion' as the working theme of the story; even such that she repeated the theme, several times, with vignettes within the story as variations on the theme. However, there are no sources by Austen scholars —that is, no citations here— that validate such a view. On the other hand, as the Caveat below explains, there is evidence that supports the opposite view —that Austen did not have in mind such an explicit theme and variations. Indeed, it appears she did not even envision the title of the story as "Persuasion".

(Caveat: The title of the novel was not chosen by Jane Austen, but probably by her brother Henry, or perhaps her sister Cassandra, who was very close to Jane.[citation needed] Henry had long been the champion of his sister's writing, especially in the business and publishing circles where he had more access than Cassandra. After Jane's death it was he who arranged for publishing the novel, perhaps naming it in the process. Or —it is reasonable to speculate— the siblings collaborated in choosing the title, even if Henry was the only one present for executing the publishing agreements. In addition, it might —again, reasonably to speculate— be, that they envisioned a title invoking that condition of 'persuasion-cum-regret' which, at the novel's beginning, had become the unhappy lot of the story's heroine, Anne Elliot. Contrastingly, some critics believe Austen intended to name the novel "The Elliots"; but she died without titling it.)

Explanation of Title —Variation on a Theme?
.....III

Readers of "Persuasion" might infer Jane Austen intended 'persuasion' as the working theme of the story; even that she repeated the theme, several times, with vignettes within the story as variations on the theme. However, there are no sources by Austen scholars —that is, no citations here— that validate such a view. On the other hand, as the Caveat below explains, there is evidence that supports the opposite view —that Austen did not have in mind such an explicit theme and variations. Indeed, it appears she did not even envision the title of the story as "Persuasion"...................III

(Caveat: The title of the novel was not chosen by Jane Austen, but probably by her brother Henry, or perhaps her sister Cassandra, who was very close to Jane.[citation needed] Henry had long been the champion of his sister's writing, especially in the business and publishing circles where he had more access than Cassandra. After Jane's death it was he who arranged for publishing the novel, perhaps naming it in the process. Or —it is reasonable to speculate— the two siblings collaborated in choosing the title, even if Henry was the only one present for executing the publishing agreements. Further, it might be —again, to speculate— that he or they envisioned a title apropos of invoking the 'persuasion-cum-regret' that, before the novel began, had become the unhappy lot of the story's heroine, Anne Elliot. Reasonable enough —for speculation. In contrast, some critics believe Austen intended to name the novel "The Elliots"; but she died without titling it.)...............III

xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

SUMMARY: Rewrote and replaced the section "Explanation of Title" because the (previous) version is without basis for the claims made and implied: that the author, —the magnificant Jane, she of 'irony-full' and error-free'— herself wrote the great theme of persuasion, 'with variations on the theme' into her (masterpiece) story:  of Annne Elliot with addled family & kin, and  —not least— of Anne's bedraggled dreams for her great (un-Hamlet) hunk, Capt. Wentworth, currently of HBMRN.

By "without basis" I note there are no scholarly sources cited here that speak of any evidence —among JA's papers, letters, notes, etc., or others' records— that JA wrote such. Without reliable and independent sources these claims should not be reported to the world by wikipedia as Jane's work —or as her sly writerly intentions.

(Please forgive me, IMO this novel is indeed a masterpiece --my favorite of all my Jane favorites-- but I'm no scholar.)

Readers of "Persuasion" might infer Jane Austen intended persuasion as the major theme of the story, and that she repeated the theme (several times) —with vignettes within the story as variations on the theme. However, there are no citations (here) of sources by Austen scholars that validate such a view. On the other hand, as the Caveat explains, there's evidence that supports the opposite view —that Austen had in mind no such explicit theme (or variations) for the story. Indeed, it appears she did not even envision the title of the story as "Persuasion".

x---x

Jane Austen's //be tempted to make//

ep<>1<>1<>1-DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE-<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1<>1

xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfinis

Empress Matilda: 012809

FR13>EmpressMat
ep<>3<>3DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3<>3

Still, "Empress" was arguably an appropriate courtesy title for the wife of the Emperor, who had been crowned by the Pope. ->S/B:

Still, "Empress" was arguably an appropriate courtesy title for the wife of //an Emperor//who had been crowned by the Pope.

Matilda's marriage with Geoffrey was troubled; there were frequent long separations, but they had three sons and survived him. -->>>S/B:

Matilda's marriage with Geoffrey was troubled; there were frequent long separations, but they had three sons and //she survived him.

ep<>3<>3<>3<>3DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfinis

<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.<>5.

Re: Hertfordshire

History Main article: History of Hertfordshire Hertfordshire was originally the area assigned to a fortress constructed at Hertford under the rule of Edward the Elder in 913. The name Hertford is derived from the Anglo-Saxon heort ford, meaning deer crossing (of a watercourse). The name Hertfordshire first appears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1011. Deer feature prominently in many county emblems. xxxs xxxs The Domesday Book recorded the county as having nine hundreds. Tring and Danais became one, Dacorum, from (Danis Corum or Danish rule harking back to a Viking not Saxon past). The other seven were Braughing, Broadwater, Cashio, Edwinstree, Hertford, Hitchin and Odsey.

As London grew, Hertfordshire became conveniently close to the English capital; much of the area was owned by the nobility and aristocracy, this patronage helped to boost the local economy. However, the greatest boost to Hertfordshire came during the Industrial Revolution, after which the population rose dramatically. >>S/B://Jane Austen sited several fictional places here from her "P&P"//

In 1903, Letchworth became the world's first garden city and Stevenage became the first town to redevelop under the New Towns Act 1946.

xxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxfinis

<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.<>6.-DONE/DONE/DONE/020309

Re: Pride and Prejudice

Plot summary

The news that a nearby manor, Netherfield Park, has been "taken by a young man of large fortune" causes a stir in the village of Longbourn, especially in the Bennet household. And soon it is learned there the young man's critical status: single; and his name: Mr. Charles Bingley. (The Bennets have five unmarried daughters: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia —from oldest to youngest— and Mrs. Bennet is desperate to see them all married.) Mr. Bennet pays the necessary social call on Mr. Bingley; who reciprocates by calling upon the Bennets; then all the Bennet family attend a village ball to which Mr. Bingley has agreed to appear. He shows, is very taken with Jane, and dances with her twice. He obviously enjoys himself and his new company, and proves a most popular young man of the ball. Contrarily, Bingley's two sisters and his close friend Mr. Darcy are obviously bored with the ball, which causes the general populace to view them as arrogant; Mr. Darcy makes an especially obnoxious impression by openly refusing to dance with Elizabeth.

xx-DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE/DONE020309

RE: continue re P&P:

<>&<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7<>7

The novel opens with the line, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." The arrival of such a man in the neighbourhood greatly excites Mrs. Bennet, whose sole interest in life is to see her five daughters married. The wealthy young man in question, Mr. Bingley, has leased the Netherfield estate and plans to settle for a while. His two sisters, a friend and his brother-in-law are staying with him.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

(Her opening line to her first major work is set out here; thus, Jane Austen drafted and affixed into English literature one of the most recognized of all opening lines for all novels; arguably, it is the most memorable. Its comedic irony is obvious without reading the next word of the story. However, its magical capture, in one line, of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.)

//The story presents truth of reality as can be conveyed only in fiction —from the mythos found in the imagination of the preeminently talented writer.)

//in this case the life of one woman and of several women of the Geo -preRegency England

//ever written to begin novels; //of all first lines ever written by authors to open their novels; //preeminent one //foremost

vvvvv-vvvvvvvv

Plot summary "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."

(The author's opening line to her first major work is set out here (above); thus, Jane Austen penned into English literature one of the most recognized of all opening lines for a novel; arguably, it is the most memorable. Its comedic irony is obvious without reading another word of the story. It's capture of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.)

//However, its magical capture, in one line, of the essence of the story being ushered into life requires reading, completely, to behold.) //drafted and affixed

The news that a vacant manor, Netherfield Park, has been "taken by a young man of large fortune" causes a stir in the nearby village of Longbourn, especially in the Bennet household. And soon is learned the young man's critical status: single; and his name: Mr. Charles Bingley. (The Bennets have five unmarried daughters: Jane, Elizabeth, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia —oldest to youngest— and Mrs. Bennet is desperate to see them all married.) Mr. Bennet pays the necessary social call on Mr. Bingley; who reciprocates by calling upon the Bennets; then all the Bennets attend a village ball to which Mr. Bingley has agreed to appear. He appears, is very taken with Jane, and dances with her twice. Obvious to all, he enjoys himself and his new company, and proves a most popular young man at the ball. Contrarily, Bingley's two sisters and his close friend Mr. Darcy are obviously bored with the ball, which causes the local populace to view them as arrogant; Mr. Darcy makes an especially obnoxious impression by openly refusing to dance with Elizabeth.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

House of Mathrafal House of Mathrafal

Arms of the Mathrafal House of Powys Country Wales Parent house House of Dinefwr Titles King of Gwynedd and Powys, Prince of Powys, Prince of Powys Wenwynwyn, Prince of Powys Fadog, Lord of Glyn Dyfrdwy, Lord of Powys, Baron Grey of Powis Founder Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, King of Gwynedd and Powys Founding year 1063 Ethnicity Welsh Cadet branches The Mathrafal dynasty began as a cadet branch of the Dinefwr dynasty, taking their name from Mathrafal Castle which was their principal seat and served as the capital of Powys. Members of this family trace their lineage to Rhodri the Great who had

Rhodri's grandson Hywel Dda took possession of Powys in 916.

it was their son Bleddyn ap Cynfyn that would found the line known as the House of Mathrafal that would continue to rule in Powys until the early 14th century (see Powys Wenwynwyn), when they were finely displaced by the Marcher lordship of Mortimer.

Bleddyn ap Cynfyn was able to take possession of Gwynedd when Gruffudd ap Llywelyn died in 1063. From this point forward the family jockeyed with the Dinefwr and Aberffraw dynasties for control of Wales. Their influence was greatest between 1063 to 1081, but lost control of Gwynedd

frequently at logger heads with Gwynedd. ///Historian John Davies points out that with the division of Powys, the dynasty from 1191 could not be considered as "equal" to that of Aberffraw or Dinefwr. Indeed, Mathrafal Castle was utterly destroyed by Gwynedd in 1212 //reducing the realm to one entirely dependent on England for its survival//.

However, the Mathrafal dynasty would continue to exert some influence, undermining and eventually //betraying Llywelyn the Last during the Edwardian Conquest of 1282-3//. They exchanged their royal pretences for an English lordship at the Parliament of Shrewsbury in 1283.

Members of the Mathrafal Dynasty include Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, Maredudd ap Bleddyn, Gwladys ferch Rhiwallon, Trahaearn ap Caradog, Gwenwynwyn ab Owain Cyfeiliog, Griffith and Owen de la Pole.

The other principal royal sites in Wales are Aberffraw for Gwynedd and Dinefwr for Deheubarth.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Princely House of Dinefwr

With the death of Rhodri Mawr, the kingdom of Gwynedd passed to his eldest son Anarawd ap Rhodri.

Rhodri's second son Cadell ap Rhodri, however, looked outside Gwynedd's traditional borders and took possession of the Dark Ages kingdom of Dyfed by the late 9th century, establishing his capital at the citadel of Dinefwr. Cadell ap Rhodri's descendants are designated Dinefwr after the citadel from which they would rule Dyfed.

The Dinefwr dynasty under king Hywel Dda would unite Dyfed and Seisyllwg into the kingdom of Deheubarth in the early 10th century. //The Dinefwr dynasty would rule in Deheubarth until their conquest by the Anglo-Normans in the 13th century//. This branch would compete with House Aberffraw for supremacy and influence in Wales through-out the 10th, 11th, and 12th century, with Powys variously ruled between them. //Eventually, a cadet branch of Dinefwr would establish itself in Powys by the mid 11th century//, designated Mathrafal after the castle there.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ancestry coat of arms of Owen Tudor

Owen was a descendant of Rhys ap Gruffudd (1132 - 1197)

Rhys dau Gwenllian ferch //(daughter of) Rhys// who m. Ednyfed Fychan

Ednyfed Fychan and Gwenllian -parents to Goronwy who m. Morfydd ferch Meurig,     xxxx daughter to Meurig of Gwent. xxxx desc. of Iestyn ap Gwrgant. Iestyn had been the xxxx last King of Gwent (reigned 1081 - 1091) before its conquest by the Normans.)

Goronwy and Morfydd parents to Tudur Hen, Lord of Penmynydd (d. 1311);

Tudur Hen m. Angharad ferch Ithel Fychan; pares. to Goronwy ap Tudur, secc'r Lord of Penmynydd (d. 1331)

Goronwy ap Tudur m. Gwerfyl ferch Madog, pares to Tudur Fychan, Lord of Pemmynydd (d. 1367)

Tudur Fychan m. Margaret ferch Thomas. (Margaret was daughter to Thomas ap Llewelyn, xxxx Lord of Is Coed, South Wales and his wife Eleanor ferch Philip. Her paternal xxxx grandfather was Llewelyn ab Owain, Lord of Gwynnionith. The maternal grandfather xxxx was Philip ab Ifor, Lord of Is Coed.)

Tudur and Margaret pares to Maredudd ap Tudur (d. 1406);

Maredudd m. Margaret ferch Dafydd. (Margaret dau Dafydd Fychan, Lord of Anglesey

Maredudd ap Tudur and Margaret ferch Dafydd pares to Owen Tudor, 1386.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

re: :Llywelyn the Last

[edit] Annexation This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (May 2008)

With the loss of Llywelyn, Welsh morale and the will to resist diminished, Dafydd was Llywelyn's named successor. He carried on the struggle for several months, but in June 1283 was captured in the uplands above Garth Celyn at Bera Mountain, together with his family, brought before Edward, then taken to Shrewsbury where a special session of Parliament condemned him to death. He was dragged through the streets, hanged, drawn and quartered.

After the final defeat of 1283 Gwynedd was stripped of all royal insignia, relics and regalia. Edward took particular delight in appropriating the royal home of the Gwynedd dynasty. In August, 1284 he set up his court at Garth Celyn (Aber Garth Celyn now Abergwyngregyn, Gwynedd) With equal deliberateness he removed all the insignia of majesty from Gwynedd; Llywelyn's coronet was solemnly presented to the shrine of St. Edward at Westminster; the jewel or Coron Arthur was an even more prized treasure; the matrices of the seals of Llywelyn, of his wife, and his brother Dafydd were melted down to make a chalice; the most precious religious relic in Gwynedd, the fragment of the True Cross known as Cross of Neith, was paraded through London in May of 1285 in a solemn procession on foot led by the king, the queen, the archbishop of Canterbury and fourteen bishops, and the magnates of the realm. Edward was thereby appropriating the historical and religious regalia of the house of Gwynedd and placarding to the world the extinction of its dynasty and the annexation of the principality to his Crown. Commenting on this a contemporary chronicler is said to have declared "and then all Wales was cast to the ground."[3]

Most of Llywelyn's relatives ended their lives in captivity — with the notable exceptions of his younger brother Rhodri who had long since sold his claim to the crown and endeavoured to keep a very low profile, and a distant cousin Madoc ap Llywelyn who led a future revolt and claimed the title Prince of Wales in 1294. Llywelyn and Eleanor's baby daughter Gwenllian of Wales was captured by Edward's troops in 1283. She was interned at Sempringham Priory in England for the rest of her life, dying without issue in 1337 probably knowing little of her heritage and speaking none of her language.

Dafydd's two surviving sons were captured and incarcerated at Bristol Gaol where they eventually died many years later. Llywelyn's elder brother Owain Goch disappears from the record in 1282 and the presumption is that he was murdered. Llywelyn's surviving brother Rhodri (who had been exiled from Wales since 1272) survived and held manors in Gloucestershire, Cheshire, Surrey and Powys and died around 1315. His grandson, Owain Lawgoch, later claimed the title Prince of Wales. The male blood line of Cunedda was believed to have become extinct after his assassination in 1378 but may have survived in Welsh society through the family of Sir John Wynn, 1st Baronet of Gwydir (a descendant of Owain Gwynedd) up until the mid 18th century and may survive today.[citation needed]

Preceded by Dafydd I Prince of Wales 1246-1282 Succeeded by Edward Plantagenet Preceded by Dafydd II Prince of Gwynedd 1246-1282 Succeeded by Abolished Titular Prince of Gwynedd - Succeeded by Dafydd III

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Children Several of Rhys's children, including Gruffydd and Maelgwn, were buried at Strata Florida Abbey.Rhys had at least nine sons and eight daughters.[60] Confusingly, three of the sons were named Maredudd and two of the daughters were named Gwenllian. Gruffydd ap Rhys (died 1201) was the eldest legitimate son and was nominated by Rhys as his successor. He married Matilda de Braose.[61] Maelgwn ap Rhys (died 1231), who was the eldest son but illegitimate, refused to accept Gruffydd as his father's successor.

//A bitter feud developed between the two, with several of Rhys's other sons becoming involved. Rhys Gryg (died 1233) married Joan de Clare[62] and eventually became the main power in Deheubarth, but never ruled more than a portion of his father's realm and was a client prince of Llywelyn the Great of Gwynedd//.

Hywel ap Rhys (died 1231) spent many years as a hostage at the court of Henry II and on his return became known as Hywel Sais (Hywel the Saxon, i.e. Englishman). Maredudd ap Rhys (died 1239) was also given as a hostage, but was less fortunate than Hywel. He was blinded by King Henry after the failure of the invasion of Wales in 1165, and became known as Maredudd Ddall (Maredudd the Blind). He ended his days as a monk at Whitland Abbey. Another Maredudd (died 1227) became Archdeacon of Cardigan.[61]

//''His daughter Gwenllian ferch Rhys married Rhodri ab Owain, prince of the western part of Gwynedd. Another Gwenllian (died 1236) married Ednyfed Fychan, seneschal of Gwynedd under Llywelyn the Great, and through her Rhys became an ancestor of the Tudor dynasty''//.

//When Henry Tudor landed in Pembrokeshire in 1485 to make a bid for the throne, his descent from Rhys was one of the factors which enabled him to attract Welsh support//.[63] Angharad ferch Rhys married William FitzMartin, lord of Cemais. Other daughters married the Welsh rulers of Gwrtheyrnion and Elfael.[64]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jbean's DRAFTING BOARD (25feb, 2009): \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////// //////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////

Edward Deuce
xxxxxxxxxxx>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cur/ao 0224

Death 1Edward II's tomb at Gloucester Cathedral

The government of Isabella and Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed king in the hands of their political enemies. On 3 April, Edward II was removed from Kenilworth and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer, then later imprisoned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire where, it is generally believed, he was murdered by an agent of Isabella and Mortimer.

2On the night of 11 October while lying in on a bed [the king] was suddenly seized and, while a great mattress... weighed him down and suffocated him, a plumber's iron, heated intensely hot, was introduced through a tube into his secret parts so that it burned the inner portions beyond the intestines.—Thomas de la Moore[8]

3It was rumoured that Edward had been killed by the insertion of a piece of copper into his rectum (later a red-hot iron rod, as in the supposed murder of Edmund Ironside). Murder in this manner would have appeared a natural death, as a metal tube would have been inserted into the anus first, thus allowing the iron rod to penetrate the entrails without leaving a burn on the buttocks.

4This gruesome account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source (other than Thomas de la Moore) and no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II. The closest chronicler to the scene in time and distance, Adam Murimuth, stated that it was 'popularly rumoured' that he had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes. Not until the relevant sections of the longer Brut chronicle were composed by a Lancastrian (anti-Mortimer) polemicist in the mid-1330s was the story of a copper rod in the anus widely circulated. In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir puts forward the theory based on the Fieschi Letter that Edward actually escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile. Ian Mortimer, in his biography of Edward III, and in his biography of Roger Mortimer, also asserts that Edward II survived for at least another 14 years after his supposed death in 1327, and in fact died in Italy. Ian Mortimer argues Edward II's survival is a matter of certainty.[9]

5Following the public announcement of the king's death, the rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots in the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when Edward III came of age in 1330, he executed Roger Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, most significantly the murder of Edward II (thereby removing any public doubt about his father's survival). Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX cur/ao 0224

wkg--0224

Death Edward II's tomb at Gloucester Cathedral

1The government of Isabella and Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed king in the hands of their political enemies. On 3 April, Edward II was removed from Kenilworth and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer, then later imprisoned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire.

// where it is generally believed, he was murdered by an agent of Isabella and Mortimer.\\

4Accounts of Edward's death are shrouded by the lack of authenic contemporary information surviving today. The extant popular accounts are hardly more than folk tales or politically-driven creations by scribes or chroniclers whose services were bought-and-paid-for. These extant accounts are uncorroborated by any contemporary source, and no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II.

5In the mid-1330s --almost a decade after the alleged scenario-- the 'true' story of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus was composed by a Lancastrian polemicist; this delightfully lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public in reception and wide circulation.

//sections of the longer Brut chronicle were composed by a Lancastrian (anti-Mortimer) polemicist was the story of a copper rod in the anus widely circulated.

6The chronicler Adam Murimuth, who was closest to the scene in time and distance, stated that it was 'popularly rumoured' that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.

7Not until the relevant sections of the longer Brut chronicle were composed by a Lancastrian (anti-Mortimer) polemicist in the mid-1330s was the story of a copper rod in the anus widely circulated.

8In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir puts forward the theory based on the Fieschi Letter that Edward actually escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile. Ian Mortimer, in his biography of Edward III, and in his biography of Roger Mortimer, also asserts that Edward II survived for at least another 14 years after his supposed death in 1327, and in fact died in Italy. Ian Mortimer argues Edward II's survival is a matter of certainty.[9]

wkg--0224

wkg--0225  Edward II Geoffrey the Baker Ian Mortimer (historian) Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Death: Mystery and Propaganda

 * 1) 1rvThe regency government of Isabella and Mortimer was precarious; so much so that they dared not leave the deposed king accessible to their political enemies. In early April, 1330, Edward II was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer. He later was interned for safekeeping —under the aegis of parliament— at the seat of Mortimer's son-in-law, Lord Thomas de Berkeley, i.e., at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. There, several months later —it was bruited generally about— he was supposedly murdered by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.#

2rvDetails of Edward's life after his deposition and of his death are shrouded by the lack of authenic contemporary information surviving today. The extant popular accounts are hardly more than folk tales or politically-driven creations by scribes or chroniclers whose services were bought-and-paid-for. These extant accounts are uncorroborated by any contemporary source, and no-one writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II. The chronicler Adam Murimuth, who was closest to the scene in time and distance, --his career oeuvre flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1346?-- reported that it was 'popularly rumoured' that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.

In the mid-1330s --almost a decade after the alleged scenario-- the 'true' story of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus was composed by a Lancastrian polemicist; this delightfully lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public in reception and wide circulation.//////>>

//////


 * 1) ((///However, thus begins the great mystery that shrouds knowing today of what actually 'became' of Edward II after his abdication and removal from power. The extant accounts of Edward's supposed murder in 1327 are uncorroborated by any contemporary source; contrarywise, there is interpretible evidence to the 'point of certainty' that the announcement of his 'death' in September, 1327 --and the subsequent public 'funeral'-- were faked by persons known and unknown. Appparently, nobody writing in the 14th century knew exactly what did happen to Edward II.///))


 * 1) //However, //aAfter his abdication and the crowning of his young son (Edward III) as king// //details of Edward's life, and specifically his death, are shrouded by lack of authenic contemporary information surviving today; and, it appears there may have been deliberate efforts at the time —on several sides— to keep Edward's actual whereabouts and fate from common knowledge.

The varying 'contemporary' accounts describing his death are//(hardly more than) folk tales copied down by chroniclers or politically-driven screeds written by scribes whose services were bought-and-paid-for.#

—the de facto end of his reign—


 * 1) ((///The extant accounts are uncorroborated by any contemporary source; apparently, nobody writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II.///)) Indeed, the chronicler Adam Murimuth, who was closest to the scene in time and distance —his career oeuvre flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— reported that it was "popularly rumoured" that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.#


 * 1) In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the scenario alleged— the now-infamous tale of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-poker-driven-up-his-anus was composed by an unknown Lancastrian polemicist —apparently a political strategy by the Lancastrian powers of painting their enemy, the Mortimers, as ghoulish regicides; this lurid tale, while no logic for a motive, proved very popular in public reception and wide circulation; it was widely copied thereafter by chronclers, one of the earliest being Geoffrey the Baker, writing some ___ years 'after the fact'(?) for his patron Thomas de la Moore in favour of the Lancastrian powers.#////////

In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir puts forward the theory based on the Fieschi Letter that Edward actually escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile. The respected historian and scholar Ian Mortimer has particularly studied this question. In his biography of Edward III, and in his biography of Roger Mortimer, Ian Mortimer asserts that Edward II survived for at least another 14 years after his supposed death in 1327, and in fact died in Italy. Professor? Mortimer argues Edward II's survival after his deposition is a matter of certainty.[9]\\\\\\\>>

\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\
 * 1) In her biography of the Edward's wife Isabella, Alison Weir advances the theory —based on the Fieschi Letter— that Edward actually escaped —or was allowed to escape— his prison keepers, then fled England, and lived the rest of his life in anonymous exile. The respected historian and scholar Ian Mortimer has particularly studied the question of Edward's fate. In his separate biographies of Roger Mortimer and of Edward III, historian Mortimer asserts that Edward II survived for at least another 14 years after his supposed death in 1327, and in fact died in Italy. In this ___ essay Ian Mortimer argues that Edward II's survival after his deposition is a matter of certainty.[9]#

zzzz

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots in the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when Edward III came of age in 1330, he executed Roger Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, most significantly including the murder of Edward II --thereby establishing in the public mind the understnding that the old king was dead.

//removing public doubt about his father's survival).\\ Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.///\\\\>

///\\\ ///\\\
 * 1) Following public announcement by the joint regents Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer of the 'king's death', their rule did not last long. They made peace with the Scots in the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when Edward III came of age in 1330, he moved directly to arrest Roger Mortimer and execute him; there were published against Mortimer fourteen charges of treason, most significantly that for murder of Edward II —thereby squelching any public doubt that the 'old' king was dead. Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.#

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz---zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

ref: Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, (half)brother of Edward II >>>>>>0228

Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent (5 August 1301 – 19 March 1330) was a member of the English Royal Family.

He was born at Woodstock in Oxfordshire, the son of King Edward I and his second wife, Queen Marguerite. He was 62 years younger than his father, who died when Edmund of Woodstock was only seven.

In 1327, after the execution and forfeiture of the Earl of Arundel, Kent held the castle and honour (land) of Arundel, although he was never formally invested with the titles appropriate to this barony. He was the father of Joan of Kent, through whom the earldom eventually passed into the Holland family.

Kent was sentenced to death —19 March 1330— by Sir Robert de Hauville for treason, having supported his half-brother, the deposed King Edward II, by order of the Regents the Earl of March (Roger Mortimer) and Queen Isabella, before the outer walls of Winchester Castle. It was said that he believed Edward II to be still alive and had conspired to rescue him from prison. Such was public hostility to the execution that "he had to wait five hours for an executioner, because nobody wanted to do it", until a convicted murderer offered to do the deed in exchange for a pardon.

He was buried on 31 March at the Church of the Dominican Friars in Winchester.

Kent's execution was the beginning of the end for Mortimer's regency. Thereafter, in October 1330, King Edward III assumed the full powers of King with the support of Kent's cousin, the powerful Henry of Lancaster, 3rd Earl of Lancaster. Mortimer was executed that same year for, inter alia, having assumed the royal powers. The children and widow of the Earl of Kent were treated as members of Edward III's Royal Household.

<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>

ref: Thomas de Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley, custodian of Edw II at Berkeley Castle >>>>>0304

Thomas de Berkeley, aka Thomas the Rich (c. 1293 or 1296 – 27 October 1361) was an English baron and the custodian of the Berkeley Castle.

He was the son of Maurice de Berkeley, 2nd Baron Berkeley and Eve la Zouche.

Edward II In 1327 he was made joint custodian of the deposed King Edward II of England, whom he received at Berkeley Castle, but being commanded to deliver over the government to his fellow custodians, Lord Maltravers and Sir Thomas Gournay, he left there to go to Bradley with heavy cheere perceiving what violence was intended. As an accessory to the murder of the deposed king, he was tried by a jury of 12 knights in the 4th year of King Edward III of England, but was honorably acquitted.

Marriage His first marriage was to Margaret de Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March and Joan de Geneville. They had five children:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

re Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March

Invasion of England and defeat of Edward II

The scandal of Isabella’s relations with Mortimer compelled them both to withdraw from the French court to Flanders, where they obtained assistance for an invasion of England. Landing in England in September 1326, they were joined by Henry, Earl of Lancaster; London rose in support of the queen, and Edward took flight to the west, pursued by Mortimer and Isabella.

After wandering helplessly for some weeks in Wales, the [Edward the]king was taken prisoner on 16 November, and was compelled to abdicate in favour of his son, [Edw III]. Though the latter was crowned as Edward III on January 25, 1327, the country was ruled by Mortimer and Isabella,

who were widely believed to have arranged the murder of Edward II in the following September at Berkeley Castle. Modern scholarship has cast doubt on this however, with some historians claiming the ex-king was not buried in 1327 but secretly maintained alive on Mortimer's orders until his fall from grace in 1330. [3].

[edit] Powers won and lost Rich estates and offices of profit and power were now heaped on Mortimer. He was made constable of Wallingford Castle, and in September 1328 he was created Earl of March. The "Tyburn Tree"The jealousy and anger of many nobles was aroused by Mortimer's use of power;

Henry, Earl of Lancaster, one of the principals behind Edward II's deposition, tried to overthrow Mortimer, but the action was ineffective as the young king passively stood by. Then, in March of 1330, Mortimer ordered the execution of Edmund, Earl of Kent, the half-brother of Edward II. After this execution Henry Lancaster prevailed upon the young king, Edward III, to assert his independence.

In October 1330, a Parliament was called in Nottingham, just days before Edward's eighteenth birthday, and Mortimer and Isabella were seized by Edward and his companions from inside Nottingham Castle. In spite of Isabella’s entreaty to her son, "Fair son, have pity on the gentle Mortimer," Mortimer was conveyed to the Tower.

Accused of assuming royal power and of various other high misdemeanours, he was condemned without trial and ignominiously hanged at Tyburn on 29 November 1330, his vast estates being forfeited to the crown. Mortimer's widow, Joan

xxxx-->>>>0304

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

re: A Note on the Deaths of Edward II,[see link] >Ian Mortimer (historian)

1 The Brut or the Chronicles of England, ed. F. W. D. Brie, 2 vols., EETS OS 131 and 136 (1906-8), I pp. 248–9, 253; and other longer Brut continuations, e.g. BL MS Royal 20 A xviii (15th cent) and MS Royal 20 A iii (14th cent) after 1333 (translated late 14th cent) 21 (St Matt) Not stated Red-hot copper rod. Maltravers and Gurney

2 ‘Gesta Edwardi de Carnarvon auctore canonico Bridlingtoninensi’ in Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols. (London 1882-3), II, 97 before 1339? It is not clear whether the entry dates from a later 14th century revision 21 (St Matt) 20 (vigil St Thomas) Writer does not believe ‘what is now being written’. Used a shorter Brut. n/a 3 Consider the nature of the accusations [of treason, by the Mortimer government] against the earl of Kent -[March 1330]. These were spearheaded by Lord Mortimer, [the] the chief political power in the realm. >>>>>>>>>>Why did he need to accuse Kent of trying to free a dead man from Corfe Castle? The chronicler Geoffrey le Baker, ..... was lured into a trap by Mortimer. But if Mortimer ....

The whole story involving the ex-king's illegal detention in Corfe Castle (contrary to terms of Magna Carta) was extremely damaging to Mortimer. Besides, Mortimer was also supposed [ie, rumored] to have killed Edward II....[this settled to the advantage to Mortimer because E had been unpopular as king] [so, since Mort 'knew' E was dead ('cause he, Mort, had 'killed' him) >>why 'spearhead' a re-conjuring of Edward as still alive, and therefore as a pretender?] Why then invent a pretender?

Especially when it led to rumours throughout the realm that Edward II was alive at Corfe. Why tell the world your arch-enemy is still alive and secretly in hiding if you have already buried him?

>>>>>>>The only reasonable explanation for Mortimer accusing Kent of trying to rescue Edward II was that he too knew or believed the man to be alive.[and that his power would be destroyed if E's friends managed to gain his release from 'keeping'] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Then, in March of 1330, Mortimer ordered the execution of Edmund, Earl of Kent, the half-brother of Edward II. After this execution Henry Lancaster prevailed upon the young king, Edward III, to assert his independence. In October 1330, a Parliament was called in Nottingham, just days before Edward's eighteenth birthday (13 Nov 1312), and Mortimer and Isabella were seized by Edward and his companions from inside Nottingham Castle. In spite of Isabella’s entreaty to her son, "Fair son, have pity on the gentle Mortimer," Mortimer was conveyed to the Tower.

Accused of assuming royal power and of various other high misdemeanours, he was condemned without trial and ignominiously hanged at Tyburn on 29 November 1330, his vast estates being forfeited to the crown. Mortimer's widow, Joan, received a pardon in 1336 and survived till 1356. She was buried beside Mortimer at Wigmore, but the site was later destroyed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a/o 03__09

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda

4rv/////////////Details of Edward's survival, life and death after he was deposed by parliament, in January, 1327, were shrouded by the intent and efforts of his keepers to keep the old king secluded from public life —while he was still alive.

Edward was imprisoned, as it were, under the aegis of parliament, which appointed as his primary keepers the regent Roger Mortimer and his son-in-law Thomas de Berkeley, 3nd Baron Berkeley, and custodian of Berkeley Castle, where Edward was interned after the desposition —for his 'safety and protection'.[{REF.or}] However, it did take long for the exigencies of power politics to begin unfurling.

By late September, 1327, came the news —welcome to many, if not most, of the powerful— that the old king had died, of 'grief-induced'X illness, at Berkely Castle; this report was from Lord Berkeley himself in the form of two letters, one delivered to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to the young king (Edward III), both at Lincoln at the time. The young king began immediately spreading the news among the many important personages 'at and around' Lincoln at the time —most there in connection with the sitting of parliament, which was just concluded there.[{REF}]

Xof whom were in royal household residence  X, or members of,

Historian Ian Mortimer, discloses that the 'death report' by Lord Berkeley, in Septemeber, 1327, is the only 'first-hand' source reporting the 'death' of Edward that is authenticatable during the entire saga of Edward's survival, life and eventual death. (That is, ...)

However, it later became apparent that Lord Berkeley's report was a ruse; a very successful ruse to be sure —in that a dead body was presented for public display and mourning over a suitable period of time and in several venues; and a sincere funeral, proper for a king, conducted by high and low church and government officials acting in good faith, was certainly done, as historical records authenicate— but it (Lord Berkeley's letters) was a ruse nevertheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive again, by several people. Notably, the historian Mortimer discloses a minimum of three independent 'first-hand' sources of 'survival' reports of Edward —in England, as late as 1330— belying the singular 'death report' by Lord Berkeley[{REF}] (see below).

X as then-contemporary history played out,

X, to those concerned to learn the critical details,

Xplus two to four more reports —including his hiding in northern Italy for several years— that are authenicatible by modern historical analysis[{REF}].

X --ie, the report can be certified with confidence by historical analysis of extant information--

After the original 'death' report —of a benign death— came infusions of rumour and folk tales of Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. These largely originated or developed as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and these stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others, usually without offering any corroboration. There are no 'first-hand' authenticated sources of the extant tales, except the one 'Lord Berkeley blurb', referenced above.

X Worse, some writers sought corroboration by furnishing 'eyewitnesses' who were conveniently found for the purpose.

Indeed, other than Lord Berkeley-the-letters-writer, there is no writer in the 14th century identified as documenting exactly what had happened to Edward II. In this regard it is certainly noteworthy that the chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career oeuvre, as clerk and chronciler, flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— reported it as "popularly rumoured" that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.////////////////////////////

X ; and King Edward II was a client

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors described— the porno-violent fable of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus was ginned and released for popular consumption. The story was apparently composed by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint the Mortimers as regicides. This |delightfully| lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular and gained wide circulation among the public; and, it gained 'timeless legs' — that is, to be told and re-told into the future, more for its entertainment value than its truth. The story has no 'first-hand' source; and, for logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least it's tardiness— but most definitely for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer was so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward by a salaciously violent killing.///////////////////////>>

X when simple discretion —a non-violent, quiet death— would serve his cause far better

X --for which it has little or no value

X, which has no first-hand source,

X (who was executed in November, 1330, by Edward III)

((///However, thus begins the great mystery that shrouds knowing today of what actually 'became' of Edward II after his abdication and removal from power. The extant accounts of Edward's supposed murder in 1327 are uncorroborated by any contemporary source; contrarywise, there is interpretible evidence to the 'point of certainty' that the announcement of his 'death' in September, 1327 --and the subsequent public 'funeral'-- were faked by persons known and unknown. Appparently, nobody writing in the 14th century knew exactly what did happen to Edward II.///)) //However, //aAfter his abdication and the crowning of his young son (Edward III) as king// //details of Edward's life, and specifically his death, are shrouded by lack of authenic contemporary information surviving today; and, it appears there may have been deliberate efforts at the time —on several sides— to keep Edward's actual whereabouts and fate from common knowledge. The varying 'contemporary' accounts describing his death are//(hardly more than) folk tales copied down by chroniclers or politically-driven screeds written by scribes whose services were bought-and-paid-for.#

—the de facto end of his reign—

((///The extant accounts are uncorroborated by any contemporary source; apparently, nobody writing in the 14th century knew exactly what had happened to Edward II.///)) Indeed, the chronicler Adam Murimuth, who was closest to the scene in time and distance —his career oeuvre flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— reported that it was "popularly rumoured" that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.# In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the scenario alleged— the now-infamous tale of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-poker-driven-up-his-anus was composed by an unknown Lancastrian polemicist —apparently a political strategy by the Lancastrian powers of painting their enemy, the Mortimers, as ghoulish regicides; this lurid tale, while no logic for a motive, proved very popular in public reception and wide circulation; it was widely copied thereafter by chronclers, one of the earliest being Geoffrey the Baker, writing some ___ years 'after the fact'(?) for his patron Thomas de la Moore in favour of the Lancastrian powers.#////////

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a/o 0314_09

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda

5rv/////////////#The regency government of Isabella and Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed king accessible to their political enemies. In early April, 1330, Edward II was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer. He later was interned for safekeeping —under the aegis of parliament— at the seat of Mortimer's son-in-law, Lord Thomas de Berkeley, i.e., at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. There, several months later, he was supposedly murdered by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.#

Contrarily, the respected historian and scholar Ian Mortimer —who has particularly studied this question— in his biography of Edward III, and in his biography of Roger Mortimer, asserts that Edward II survived for at least another 14 years after his supposed death in 1327, and in fact died in Italy. Historian Mortimer argues Edward II's survival after his deposition is a matter of certainty.[9]

Details of Edward's survival, life and death after he was deposed by parliament were shrouded by the intent and efforts of his keepers to keep the old king secluded from public life —while he was still alive.

Edward was imprisoned, as it were, under the aegis of parliament, which appointed as his primary keepers the regent Roger Mortimer and Mortimer's son-in-law Thomas de Berkeley, 3nd Baron Berkeley and custodian of Berkeley Castle, where Edward was interned after the desposition —for his 'safety and protection'.[{REF.or}] However, it did not take long for the exigencies of power politics to begin unfurling.

By late September, 1327, came the news that the old king had died, of 'grief-induced'X illness, at Berkely Castle; this report was from Lord Berkeley himself in the form of two letters, one delivered to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to the young king (Edward III), both at Lincoln at the time. The young king began immediately spreading the news among the many important personages 'at and around' Lincoln at the time —most in connection with the sitting of parliament, which had just concluded there.[{REF}]

Historian Mortimer discloses that the 'death report' by Lord Berkeley is the only 'first-hand' source reporting the 'death' of Edward that is authenticatable during the entire saga of Edward's survival, life and eventual death after his deposition, a period covering more than 14 years by Ian Mortimer's analysis. (By 'first-hand' source is meant... )

However, it later became apparent that Lord Berkeley's report was a ruse. It was a very successful ruse to be sure —in that a dead body was presented for public display and mourning over a suitable period of time in several venues; and a sincere funeral, proper for a king, conducted by high and low church and government officials acting in good faith, was certainly accomplished, as historical records authenicate— but it (Lord Berkeley's letters) was a ruse nevertheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive again, by several people. Notably, the historian Mortimer discloses a minimum of three independent 'first-hand' sources of 'survival' reports of Edward —in England, as late as 1330— belying the singular 'death report' by Lord Berkeley[{REF}] (see below).

After the original 'death' report —of a benign death— came infusions of rumour and folk tales of Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. These largely originated or developed as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella. And these stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others, usually without offering any corroboration. (There are no 'first-hand' authenticated sources of the extant tales.)

X except the one 'Lord Berkeley blurb', referenced above.)

Indeed, other than Lord Berkeley-the-letters-writer, there is no writer in the 14th century identified as documenting exactly what had happened to Edward II. In this regard it is certainly noteworthy that the chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career oeuvre, as clerk and chronciler, flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— reported it as "popularly rumoured" that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— the porno-violent fable of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus was ginned and released for popular consumption. The story was apparently composed by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint the Mortimers as regicides. This |delightfully| lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular and gained wide circulation ?among the public; and, it gained 'timeless legs' —that is, to be told and re-told into the future— more for its entertainment value than its truth. The story has no 'first-hand' source; and for logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least it's tardiness— but most definitely for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer was so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward by a salaciously violent killing.//////>>

5Following the public announcement of the king's death, the rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots in the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when Edward III came of age in 1330, he executed Roger Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, most significantly the murder of Edward II (thereby, presumably, removing any lingering doubt ?among the public about his father's survival). Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.#

031509

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a/o 0327_09x <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a/o 0327_09x

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda

7/2709rv///////#The new regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, was precarious; so much so that they dared not leave the deposed king Edward accessible to their political enemies. In early April, 1327 —under the aegis of parliament— Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of subordinates of Mortimer. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers in their efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded from public view and incommunicado. He was interned at the seat of Mortimer's son-in-law, Thomas de Berkeley; that is, at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. There, according to various and venerable scripts of chroniclers and others —none of which have been authenticated over the centuries— Edward supposedly was murdered by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.#

Contrarily, the recent work of the professional historian and scholar Ian Mortimer —first his 2003 biography of Roger Mortimer, then his 2006 biography of Edward III, (both, see below)— provides published analyses asserting that reports of Edward's 'early' death are invariably false. Historian Mortimer argues, from facts that reference to 'first-hand' sources, that Edward survived (reclusively) for at least 14 years after he was deposed (and suppposedly killed) in 1327; instead, Mortimer argues Edward died a recluse, if not a monk, in Italy. (By 'first-hand' source is meant... ). X Further, historian Mortimer argues —from his third authoritative analysis of this specific question —the essay, "Note on the deaths of Edward I", linked below— that Edward II's survival after he was deposed is a matter of certainty based upon rigorous analyis of facts that can be referenced to 'first-hand' sources described in his essay.[REF]^^

Edward was imprisoned as it were, for his 'safety and protection'.[REF^^] However, wasn't long before the exigencies of power politics began unfurling the ambitions of political plans. By late September, 1327, came the news that the old king had died, at Berkeley Castle, of 'grief-induced' illness.[REF^^]. This report was from Lord Berkeley himself in the form of two letters, one delivered to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the young king (Edward III) —at Lincoln, where both were in residence at the time. Immediately, the young king began spreading the news among the many important personages at and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were nearby in connection with the sitting of parliament, which had just concluded there.[REF^^]

Analyses by professional scholar Mortimer discloses that —for the entire period of Edward's survival after he was deposed, i.e., a term of more than 14 years— Lord Berkeley is the only 'first-hand' source reporting the 'death' of Edward that is authenticatable, that is, for which authenticated events occurred later that reference back to the Berkeley's letters as source. In fact, Mortimers's work also discloses certifiable facts that repudiate the message of Berkeley's letters as a false report, that is, as written "in bad faith". [REF^^] XX X and that Lord Berkeley's report is repudiated by facts of 'first-hand' source.

X for the entire period of Edward's survival and remaining lifetime after he was deposed, i.e., a term of more than 14 years, and that Lord Berkeley's report is, 'of a certainty', repudiated by facts of 'first-hand' source.

As contemporary events |transpired|, it developed that Lord Berkeley's report —that Edward II had died— was a ruse. To be sure, it was a very successful ruse —in that a schrouded dead body, or a carved wooden effigy, was presented publicly over a suitable period of time in several venues for public mourning; and a sincere funeral, proper for a king, conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, was certainly accomplished, as historical records authenicate— but it was a ruse nevertheless. Because, in due time —in spite of precautions to prevent the very thing— the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight. And one person there was, whom the young king Edward spoke to, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead the embalmed man was not the old king.

Notably, in his essay, the historian Mortimer discloses a minimum of three (3)independent 'first-hand' sources of 'survival' reports of Edward by 1330, all belying the singular, impossible-to-authenticate 'death report' by Lord Berkeley from 1327.[REF^^] (see below).

After Lord Berkley's report —depicting a benign death— came infusions of rumour and folk tales of Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. These largely originated as political propaganda (against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella) which continued even after Mortimer's life and reign (as regent) were terminated. And these stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others, usually with no offer of corroboration. (There are no 'first-hand' authenticated sources of any of the extant tales.)

Indeed, other than (letter-writer) Lord Berkeley, there is no writer identified in the 14th century who documented exactly what happened to Edward II. It is certainly noteworthy that in 1334? the chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronciler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347; and he clerked for Edward II— reported as "popularly rumoured" that Edward had been suffocated. The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes. XX In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— first appeared the pornoviolent fable of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus, released for popular consumption. The story was apparently ginned by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint the Mortimers as salacious regicides. This lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained 'timeless legs', that is, to be told and re-told into the future, no doubt for its entertainment value rather than its truth, as it was never authenticated. (It was much to valuable as a fable.)

This tale was obviously a political construct of (horror) propaganda; it has no 'first-hand' source. And considering the logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least it's tardiness— but also for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer would be so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward, nor gratutiously gain the immediate enmity of the young king Edward III, Edward's son, by authorizing such a salaciously violent killing.)[Rx]

521Following the public announcement of the king's death, the rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots in the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October, 1330, he moved quickly and stealthily to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, particularly for the murder of Edward II; thereby, presumably, removing any doubt among the public about the 'old' king's survival. Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.#####

X except the one 'Lord Berkeley blurb', referenced above.)  0316-709

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--0328

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda--

8/2809rv///////#The new regency government assigned to Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, was precarious; so much so that they dared not leave the deposed king Edward accessible to their political enemies. In early April, 1327 —under the aegis of parliament— Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of subordinates of Mortimer. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to seclude old king and to keeep him incommunicado. He was interned at the seat of Mortimer's son-in-law, Thomas de Berkeley; that is, at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. There, according to various and venerable scripts of chroniclers and others —none of which have been authenticated over the centuries— Edward supposedly was murdered by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.#

z--zMortimer

Contrarily, the recent work of the professional historian and scholar Ian Mortimer —first his 2003 biography of Roger Mortimer, then his 2006 biography of Edward III, (both, see below)— provides published analyses which definitively refute reports of Edward's 'early' death. Historian Mortimer argues, from facts that reference to 'first-hand' sources, that Edward survived (reclusively) for at least 14 years after he was deposed and (suppposedly) killed in 1327; instead, Mortimer argues Edward died a recluse, if not a monk, in Italy. (By 'first-hand' source is meant... ). XX Further, historian Mortimer argues —from his third authoritative analysis of this specific question —the essay, "Note on the deaths of Edward II", linked below— that Edward's survival is a matter of certainty based upon rigorous analyis of facts that make reference to 'first-hand' sources described in his essay.[REF]^^

---Mortimer summmarized---

This section summarizes histiorian Motimer's lengthy essay, linked below. Edward was imprisoned as it were, for his 'safety and protection'.[REF^^] It wasn't long, however, before the exigencies of power politics began to play out. By late September, 1327, came the news that the old king had died, at Berkeley Castle, of 'grief-induced illness'.[REF^^]. This report, from Lord Berkeley's courier, was in the form of two letters, one delivered to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the 'young' king (Edward III) —at Lincoln, where both were in residence at the time. The very next day (that is, on 24 September 1327) after hearing the report, the young king began spreading the news among the many important personages at and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were nearby in connection with the sitting of parliament, which had just concluded there.[REF^^]

Further analyses by professional scholar Mortimer discloses that —for the entire period of Edward's survival after he was deposed, i.e., a term of more than 14 years— Lord Berkeley's report is the only 'first-hand' source reporting the death of Edward that is authenticatable, that is, for which authenticated events occurred later that refer back to Berkeley's actions as source. Most critically, Mortimers's work also discloses certifiable facts that repudiate the message of Berkeley's report, as false, that is, as reported from Berkeley "in bad faith". [REF^^] XX As contemporary events |transpired|, it developed that Lord Berkeley's report —that Edward II had died— was a ruse. To be sure, it was a very successful ruse —in that a schrouded dead body, or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy, was presented publicly over a suitable period of time in several venues for public mourning; and a sincere funeral, proper for a king, was conducted by high church and government officials acting, as historical records authenicate— but it was a ruse nevertheless. Because, in due time —in spite of precautions to prevent the very thing— the 'old' king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight. And one person there was —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time— the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king.

All the chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death(s) can be definitively accounted for —they are illustrated and decribed in critical details in historian Mortimer's essay (q.v.).

[indeed]There is no writer identified in the 14th century —professional chronicler or otherwise— who documented from a 'first-hand' account exactly what happened to Edward II after he was deposed. It is certainly noteworthy that the chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronciler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347; and he clerked for Edward II— writing in 1332 the earliest (some five years post-the-supposed-event) reported as "popularly rumoured" that Edward had been suffocated. Further, historian Mortimer writes: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying -in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire". The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled. Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.

Notably, in his essay, historian Mortimer discloses a minimum of three (3) independent 'first-hand' sources of 'survival' reports of Edward by 1330, all belying the singular, impossible-to-authenticate 'death report' by Lord Berkeley from 1327.[REF^^](see below). Plus, there were at least four additional authencated...

---TROTSx---

After Lord Berkley's report —depicting a benign death— came infusions of rumour of Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. These unauthenticated tales largely originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella, which continued even after Mortimer's life and short reign (as regent) were terminated. And these stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others, usually with no offer of corroboration. (There are no 'first-hand' sources of any of the extant tales.) XX In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— first appeared the pornoviolent fable of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus, released for popular consumption. The story was apparently ginned by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint the Mortimers as salacious regicides. This lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained 'timeless legs', that is, to be told and re-told into the future, no doubt for its entertainment value rather than its truth, as it was never authenticated. (It became valuable as a fable and tourist attraction.)

This horrific tale was obviously a political construct of propaganda; it has no 'first-hand' source. And considering the logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least it's tardiness— but also for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer would be so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward, as well as to gratutiously gain the immediate enmity of the young king Edward III, Edward's son, by authorizing such a salaciously violent killing of the father.)[Rx]

521Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots in the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October, 1330, he moved quickly and stealthily to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, most particularly for the murder of Edward II; thereby, presumably, removing any doubt among the public about the 'old' king's survival. Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.##########

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0328

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--0411

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda--

11/041109rv///////#The new regency government assigned jointly to Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was precarious; so much so that the two regents dared not leave the deposed king Edward accessible to their political enemies. In early April, 1327, under the aegis of parliament, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of subordinates of Mortimer. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned to a castle keep at the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law, that is, at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others —none of which have been authenticated— Edward supposedly was murdered by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.

Contrarily, the recent work of the contemporary professional historian and scholar Ian Mortimer —first his 2003 biography of Roger Mortimer, then his 2006 biography of Edward III— provides definitive analyses which refute reports of Edward's 'early' death. From facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327; instead of being murdered that same year Edward died a recluse, if not a monk, in Italy, Mortimer argues. (By 'first-hand' source is meant... ).

---Ian Mortimer essay summmarized---

From authoritative analysis of this specific question, historian Mortimer argues that Edward's survival after the deposition is a matter of certainty —based upon rigorous analyis of facts that make reference to 'first-hand' sources, described in his essay "Note on the deaths of Edward II", linked below. This section summarizes historian Mortimer's lengthy essay.

Edward was being kept —imprisoned as it were— for his 'safety and protection'.[REF] Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. By late September, 1327, came the news that the 'old' king had died, at Berkeley Castle, of 'grief-induced illness'.[REF]. This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was in the form of two letters, —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the 'young' king (Edward III)— delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. On the very next day after hearing the report, that is, 24 September 1327, the young king began spreading the news among the many important personages in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were at hand in connection with the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.[REF] Historian Mortimer's work discloses that —for the entire period of Edward's survival after he was deposed, i.e., a term of more than 14 years— Lord Berkeley's report is the only first-hand source reporting the death of Edward that is authenticatable; that is, one for which there are authenticated events that refer back to the essential actions (Berekeley's two letters) as source.

More critically, Mortimers's work also discloses certifiable facts that repudiate, as false, the message of Berkeley's report; that is, that the 'death' notice reported from Berkeley was given "in bad faith".[REF] As coeval events |elapsed|, it developed that Lord Berkeley's report —that Edward II had died— was a ruse. To be sure, it was a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body, or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy, was presented publicly over a suitable period of time in several venues for public mourning; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenicate. But, it was a ruse nevertheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight. And there was one person (whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral), the old woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward. Notably, historian Mortimer discloses a minimum of three (3) independent 'survival' reports, by 1330, of Edward with first-hand sources —all belying the single, impossible-to-authenticate 'death' report by Lord Berkeley from 1327.[REF] Plus, there were at least four additional authenticated...

The many chroniclers' accounts of Edward's 'deaths' are essentialy accounted for —they are illustrated and described in critical detail in historian Mortimer's essay. Further, there is no professional chronicler identified in the 14th century who reported an account of exactly what happened to Edward II after he was deposed. It is noteworthy that the chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— who, writing at the earliest some five years after the supposed event reported, as "popularly rumoured," that Edward had been suffocated. Further, historian Mortimer writes: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire".

---TROTSx---

After Lord Berkley's report —depicting a benign death— came infusions of rumour of Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. These unauthenticated tales largely originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; these tales of course continued even after Mortimer's life and short reign (as regent) were terminated. And these stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others, usually with no offer of corroboration. (There are no 'first-hand' sources of any of the extant tales.)

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the pornoviolent fable of Edward's death-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. The story was apparently ginned by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides. This lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless 'legs', that is, to be told and re-told into the future; no doubt for its entertainment value rather than its truth, as it was never authenticated. It became infamous as a fable and valuable as a tourist attraction, thriving today.

This horrific tale was obviously a construct of political propaganda; it has no first-hand source. And considering the logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least for the tardiness of its appearance— but largely for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer, by authorizing such a salaciously violent killing, would be so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward, while gratutiously gaining the immediate enmity of the young king Edward III, Edward's son.

521Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, when young Edward III came of age, in October, 1330, he moved quickly, and stealthily, to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, most particularly for the murder of Edward II; thereby, presumably, removing any doubt among the public about the 'old' king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother and gave her a generous allowance, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford on 23 August 1358.##########@@@

X The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that Edward had been strangled. [Add one more...] Most chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0411

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--0423

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda--

15/042309rv///////The regency government of Isabella and Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In early April, 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others —none of which have been authenticated— Edward supposedly was murdered by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.

Contrarily, the definitive work of the professional historian and scholar Ian Mortimer —first his 2003 biography of Roger Mortimer, then his 2006 biography of Edward III, and, in 2008, his authoritative analysis of the specific question of Edward's fate— compiles evidence that refutes reports of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327; instead of being murdered that year, Mortimer argues, Edward died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy. (By 'first-hand' source is meant... ).

---Incommunicado/False reports/? and escape---Ian Mortimer essay summmarized---

Based upon rigorous analyis of facts that make reference to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer argues that Edward's survival after the deposition is a matter of certainty, as documented in his essay "A note on the deaths of Edward II", linked below. This section includes/?summarizes Mortimer's lengthy essay.

Under the aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'.[REF (Mortimer essay) paras 18, 31] Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. By late September, 1327, came the news that the old king had died, of 'grief-induced illness'.[REF para 20]. This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was in the form of two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the 'young' king (Edward III, age 14)— delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important personages in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present in connection with the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.[REF para 16] Mortimer's analyses disclose that —throughout the entire time of Edward's survival after he was deposed, i.e., a period of more than 14 years— Lord Berkeley's report is the only first-hand source reporting the death of Edward that is authenticatable;[REF para ] that is, the only one for which there are authenticated events that refer back to first-hand actions (in this case, Berekeley's two letters) as source.

More critically, Mortimer's work also discloses certifiable facts that repudiate, as false, the message of Berkeley's report; that is, that the 'death' notice reported from Berkeley was given "in bad faith".[REF ] As events developed, it became clear that Lord Berkeley's report —that King Edward had died— was a ruse.[REF para ] To be sure, it was a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented over a suitable period of time in several public venues for public mourning; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenicate. But, it was a ruse nevertheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight. And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward.[REF para 32] Notably, historian Mortimer discloses a minimum of three (3) independent 'survival' reports, by 1330, of Edward, with first-hand sources[REF para 32] in England, and a fourth that he credits as reliable, the Fieschi letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy and perhaps western Europe —all belying the single, non-authenticatable, 'death' report by Lord Berkeley in late 1327.[REF para 33]

The many chroniclers' accounts of Edward's 'deaths' are accounted for; they are documented in essential detail in Ian Mortimer's essay.[REF para 12] (There is no professional chronicler identified in the 14th century who reported an account of exactly what happened to Edward II after he was deposed.) Mortimer prominently mentions the chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— who reported, (writing some five years after the supposed event) as "common rumour," that Edward had been suffocated.[REF para 13] Further, historian Mortimer writes:  "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire".[REF para 22] The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated that he had been strangled.

TROTS

After Lord Berkley's report —depicting a benign death— came infusions of rumour of Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. These unauthenticated tales largely originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Mortimer's life, and short reign as regent, were terminated in November, 1330. These stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others, usually with no offer of corroboration. There are no 'first-hand' sources of any for the extant tales.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the pornoviolent fable of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently drafted by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides. The lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless 'legs', that is, to be told and re-told into the future, no doubt for its entertainment value rather than its truth, as it was never authenticated. It became infamous as a fable and valuable as a tourist attraction, thriving today. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, this tale also has no first-hand source. Considering the logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least for the tardiness of its appearance— but largely for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer, by authorizing such a salaciously violent killing, would be so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward, while instantly provoking enmity in Edward's young son, King Edward III.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, as soon as young Edward III came of age (essentially), in October, 1330, he moved quickly to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, and particularly for the murder of Edward II; thereby, presumably, removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.##########@@@ xxxx

34B /050109rv/////// t3

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda
The regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In early April, 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, none of which have been authenticated, Edward died in Berkeley Castle —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.[REF (Mortimer essay) para 11]

Contrarily, the recent research of the professional historian and scholar Dr Ian Mortimer —first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and then, in a 2008 essay, his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate— all provide definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327; instead of being murdered that year, Mortimer argues, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy.

Historian Mortimer argues that Edward's survival after being deposed is a matter of certainty, as documented in his essay "A note on the deaths of Edward II", linked below. This section reports several key points of Mortimer's lengthy essay, especially identifying 'first-hand' sources of contemporary 'survival' reports. (By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or 'backed-up', by authenticated 'underlying information'; that is, by information —flowing from the reputed action— that has been researched and adjudged authenic by a competent historian/scholar.

Incommunicado and escape
Under aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept incommunicado at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'.[REF (Mortimer essay) paras 18, 31] Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. In late September, 1327, came the news that the old king had died, of 'grief-induced illness'.[REF paras 13, 15, 20] This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was in the form of two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the 'young' king (Edward III, age 14)— both delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important persons in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present for the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.[REF para 16]

Historian Mortimer's analyses disclose that —throughout the entire time of Edward's survival after he was deposed, i.e., a period of more than 14 years— Lord Berkeley's report is the only first-hand source reporting the death of Edward that is authenticatable.[REF paras 16, 17, 20, 22] However, Mortimer's completed work also discloses authenic information that repudiate, as false, the message of Berkeley's report; that is, facts that say the 'death' message reported by Berkeley was given "in bad faith".[REF paras 20, 21]

As contemporary events evolved after 1327, it became apparent to a few observant people (see below) that the old king must still be alive and that Lord Berkeley's previous report —that King Edward had died— was "issued in bad faith";[REF paras 21, 25] and, therefore, it must have been a ruse. To be sure, it had proven to be a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented in several public venues for public mourning over a suitable period of time; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenicate.[REF paras 14, 17, 22] But, it was a ruse nontheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight.[REF paras 23, 30]

And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward.[REF para 32] And there was at least one contemporary chronciler who reported the state funeral, as staged, with words of suspicion (see below). Historian Mortimer's essay presents a minimum of three (3) independent 'survival' reports, by 1330, of Edward in England, from first-hand sources;[REF paras 32, 33] and a fourth, referenced by the Fieschi Letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy, and perhaps other venues in Europe.[REF 38, 39, 40]In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir also supports the theory, based on the Fieschi Letter, that Edward escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile.

Sources, chroniclers' reports, and mystery
Most critically, a different line (of facts) makes reference to another first-hand source, i.e., a witness (not necessarily an 'eye' witness) to Edward's 'survival', who very likely was —but not yet confirmed, by historian Mortimer's rigorous criteria— Roger Mortimer himself; to wit: in March, 1330, some two years after Edward's reported death and state funeral, Edmund, Earl of Kent, (Edward's half-brother) was charged, brought before parliament, and convicted of conspiring to rescue Edward from imprisonment, with intent to "help him" be "king again";[REF paras 23, 24] Kent was executed for his conspiracy. The instigator for prosecuting and executing a man who learned that Edward was still alive, was Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, co-regent and chief of government.[REF para 25] The obvious implication (of Mortimer's prosecution of Kent) is that he (Kent) had discovered what Roger Mortimer knew: that Edward was still alive, and, therefore, for Roger Mortimer, in the year 1330, Kent was a threat who, with his friends, might maneuver to rescure and restore a 'live' Edward to the throne.[REF paras 25, 34]

These (five) 'survival' reports —all based on first-hand sources— plus others documented by historian Mortimer in his essay,[REF 34] specifically belie the singlular 'death' report sourced to Lord Berkeley in late 1327.[REF para 33]

The many chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death are accounted for; they are documented in essential detail in Ian Mortimer's essay.[REF para 12] Dr Mortimer reports: "All the chronicles ... were dependent on Lord Berkeley's announcement of the death";[REF para 17] which message, we now know, was "sent in bad faith". These facts impeach all the multivarious "information stream", i.e., the chronicles and the rumours, that flow from the Berkeley announcement.[REF para 32] (There has been no contemporary chronicler found —i.e., none identified in the 14th century— who reported what happened to Edward II after he was deposed; for good reason: he was a prisoner held incommmunicado, i.e., no visitors, no letters or reports, and no public knowledge of his exact whereabouts were permitted.)

Historian Mortimer prominently mentions the contemporary chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— and Murimuth clerked for Edward II for a time. Thus, it is telling that: only after some five years after the supposed event, and then only as "common rumour" Murimuth first reported: that Edward had been suffocated.[REF para 13] Further, Mortimer writes: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire".[REF para 22] The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated only that he had been "possibly strangled".[REF para 12] It is critical to note: none of these chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death have been authenticated; invariably, they all follow after the 'death' report sourced to Lord Berkeley —which proved false.

Fact: Edward II's actual death is still, today, a mystery —the details pertaining to his death, especially when and where, are yet to be discovered, analysed, interpreted and published for peer review by a competent historian and scholar.

This account is uncorroborated...
After Lord Berkley's report in late 1327 —depicting a benign death for Edward— came infusions of rumour describing Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. Most, or all, of these tales apparently originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Roger Mortimer's life and short reign were both terminated in November, 1330. These stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others; there are no first-hand sources for any of these extant tales.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the most exaggeratedly violent of them all, that is, the pornoviolent account of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently written by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides (see the longer "Brut" chronicle, ed. F. W. D. Brie).[REF para 12] The lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless 'legs'; i.e., to be told and re-told into the future, for entertainment value rather than for truth, as the tale was never authenticated. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, it became infamous as a fable and invaluable as a tourist attraction, thriving yet today (see Berkeley Castle). "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source"; or by any first-hand source researched by modern scholarship standards.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, as soon as young Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October, 1330, he moved, stealthily, to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, and particularly for the murder of Edward II, presumably removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.

34B /050109rv/////// t3

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX--XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PUB1/051409rv///////////t1

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda
The regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious that they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In early April, 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and entrusted to the custody of two subordinates of Mortimer. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, none of which have been authenticated, Edward died in Berkeley Castle —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.

Contrarily, the recent research of the professional historian and scholar Dr Ian Mortimer —first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and then, in a 2008 essay, his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate— all XXXprovides definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327; instead of being murdered that year, Mortimer argues, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy.

Historian Mortimer argues that Edward's survival after being deposed is a matter of certainty, as documented in his essay "A note on the deaths of Edward II", linked below. This section reports several key points of Mortimer's lengthy essay, especially identifying 'first-hand' sources of contemporary 'survival' reports. (By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or 'backed-up', by authenticated 'underlying information'; that is, by information —flowing from the reputed action— that has been researched and adjudged XXXauthentic by a competent historian/scholar.

Incommunicado and escape
Under aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept incommunicado at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'. Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. In late September, 1327, came the news that the old king had died, of 'grief-induced illness'. This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was in the form of two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the 'young' king (Edward III, age 14)— both delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important persons in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present for the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.

Historian Mortimer's analyses disclose that —throughout the time of Edward's survival after he was deposed, i.e., a period of more than 14 years— Lord Berkeley's report is the only source reporting the death of Edward that is authenticated, as now, by Mortimer's recent research. However, Mortimer's work also discloses information that repudiates, as false, the content of Berkeley's report —information that says the 'death' message reported by Berkeley was given "in bad faith". Because, according to historian Mortimer, all contemporary sources rely upon the Berkeley false report, none (of these sources) are authenticatable.

As contemporary events evolved after 1327, it became apparent to a few observant people (see below) that the old king must still be alive and that Lord Berkeley's previous report —that King Edward had died— was "issued in bad faith"; and, therefore, it must have been a ruse. To be sure, it had proven to be a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented in several public venues for public mourning over a suitable period of time; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenticate. But, it was a ruse nontheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight.

And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward. And there was at least one contemporary chronicler who reported the state funeral, as staged, with words of suspicion (see below). Historian Mortimer's essay presents a minimum of three (3) independent 'survival' reports, by 1330, of Edward in England, from first-hand sources; and a fourth, referenced by the Fieschi Letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy, and perhaps other venues in Europe. XXXIn her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir also supports the theory, based on the Fieschi Letter, that Edward escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile.

Sources, chroniclers' reports, and mystery
Most critically, a different line (of facts) makes reference to another first-hand source, i.e., a witness (not necessarily an 'eye' witness) to Edward's 'survival', who very likely was —but not yet confirmed, by historian Mortimer's rigorous criteria— Roger Mortimer himself; to wit: in March, 1330, some two years after Edward's reported death and state funeral, Edmund, Earl of Kent, (Edward's half-brother)XXX, was charged, brought before parliament, and convicted of conspiring to rescue Edward from imprisonment, with intent to "help him" be "king again"; Kent was executed for his conspiracy. The instigator XXX—for prosecuting and executing a man who learned that Edward was still alive— was Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, co-regent and chief of government. The obvious XXXimplication of Mortimer's prosecution of KentXXX is that he (Kent) had discovered what Roger Mortimer knew: that Edward was still alive, and, therefore, for Roger Mortimer, in the year 1330, Kent was a threat who, with his friends, might maneuver to XXXrescue and restore a 'live' Edward to the throne.

These (five) 'survival' reports —all based on first-hand sources— plus others documented by historian Mortimer in his XXXessay, specifically belie the singlular 'death' report sourced to Lord Berkeley in late 1327.

The many chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death are accounted for; they are documented in essential detail in Ian Mortimer's essay. Dr Mortimer reports: "All the chronicles ... were dependent on Lord Berkeley's announcement of the death"; which message, we now know, was "sent in bad faith". These facts impeach all the multivarious "information stream", i.e., the chronicles and the rumours, that flow from the Berkeley announcement. (There has been no contemporary chronicler found —i.e., none identified in the 14th century— who reported what happened to Edward II after he was deposed; for good reason: he was a prisoner held incommmunicado, i.e., no visitors, no letters or reports, and no public knowledge of his exact whereabouts were permitted.)

Historian Mortimer prominently mentions the contemporary chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— and Murimuth clerked for Edward II for a time. Thus, it is telling that: only after some five years after the supposed event, and then only as "common rumour" Murimuth first reportedXXX that Edward had been suffocated. Further, Mortimer writes: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire". The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated only that he had been "possibly strangled". It is critical to note: none of these chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death have been authenticated; invariably, they all follow after the 'death' report sourced to Lord Berkeley —which proved false.

Fact: Edward II's actual death is still, today, a mystery —the details pertaining to his death, especially when and where, are yet to be discovered, analysed, interpreted and published for peer review by a competent historian and scholar.

"This account is uncorroborated..."
After Lord Berkley's report in late 1327 —depicting a benign death for Edward— came infusions of rumour describing Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. Most, or all, of these tales apparently originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Roger Mortimer's life and short reign were both terminated in November, 1330. These stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others; there are no first-hand sources for any of these extant tales.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the most exaggeratedly violent of them all, that is, the pornoviolent account of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently written by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides (see the longer "Brut" chronicle, ed. F. W. D. Brie). The lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless 'legs'; i.e., to be told and re-told into the future, for entertainment value rather than for truth, as the tale was never authenticated. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, it became infamous as a fable and invaluable as a tourist attraction, thriving yet today (see Berkeley Castle). "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source"; or by any first-hand source researched by modern scholarship standards.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, as soon as young Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October, 1330, he moved, stealthily, to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, and particularly for the murder of Edward II, presumably removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.

endPUB1/0514- t2--ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

PUB2/051409rv////////////////////////////////////////////////////////ftr

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda
The regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious X they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In X April, 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and X placed in custody of X Mortimer's subordinates. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, X Edward died X —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.

Contrarily, X recent research of the professional historian and scholar Dr Ian Mortimer —first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and then, in a 2008 essay, his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate— X provides definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for X (Mortimer estimates) at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327; instead of being murdered that year, Mortimer argues, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy.

Historian Mortimer argues that Edward's X 'survival' X is a matter of certainty, as documented in his essay X ["A note on the deaths of Edward II"], X. This section reports several key points of Mortimer's lengthy essay, especially identifying 'first-hand' sources of contemporary 'survival' reports. (By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or 'backed-up', by authenticated 'underlying information'; that is, by information X researched and adjudged authentic by a competent historian/scholar.

Incommunicado and escape
Under aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept incommunicado at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'. Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. In late September, 1327, came the news X the old king had died, of 'grief-induced illness'. This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was X given by two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the 'young' king (Edward III, age 14)— both delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important persons in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present for the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.

Historian Mortimer's analyses disclose that —throughout the time of Edward's survival after he was deposed X— Lord Berkeley's report is the only source reporting the death of Edward that is authenticated, as now, by Mortimer's recent research. However, Mortimer's work also discloses information that repudiates, as false, the content of Berkeley's report —information that says X Lord Berkeley's 'death' message X was given "in bad faith". Because X all contemporary sources rely upon the Berkeley false report, none (of these sources) are authenticatable.

As contemporary events evolved after 1327, it became apparent to a few observant people (see below) that the old king must still be alive and that Lord Berkeley's previous report —that King Edward had died— was "issued in bad faith"; and, therefore, it must have been a ruse. To be sure, it had proven to be a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented in several public venues for public mourning over a suitable period of time; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenticate. But, it was a ruse nontheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight.

And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward. And there was at least one contemporary chronicler who reported the state funeral, as staged, with words of suspicion (see below). Historian Mortimer's essay presents a minimum of three (3) independent 'survival' reports, by 1330, of Edward in England, from first-hand sources; and a fourth, referenced by the Fieschi Letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy, and perhaps other venues in Europe.In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir also supports the theory, based on the Fieschi Letter, that Edward escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile.

Sources, chroniclers' reports, and mystery
Most critically, a different line (of facts) makes reference to another first-hand source, i.e., a witness (not necessarily an 'eye' witness) to Edward's 'survival', who very likely was —but not yet confirmed, by historian Mortimer's rigorous criteria— Roger Mortimer himself; to wit: in March, 1330, some two years after Edward's reported death and state funeral, Edmund, Earl of Kent, (Edward's >>>half-brother), was charged, brought before parliament, and convicted of conspiring to rescue Edward from imprisonment, with intent to "help him" be "king again"; Kent was executed for his conspiracy. The >>>instigator —for prosecuting and executing a man who learned that Edward was still alive— was Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, co-regent and chief of government. The obvious >>>implication of Mortimer's prosecution of  >>>Kent is that he (Kent) had discovered what Roger Mortimer knew: that Edward was still alive, and, therefore, for Roger Mortimer, in the year 1330, Kent was a threat who, with his friends, might maneuver to  >>>rescue and restore a 'live' Edward to the throne.

These (five) 'survival' reports —all based on first-hand sources— plus others documented by historian Mortimer in his >>>essay, specifically belie the singlular 'death' report sourced to Lord Berkeley in late 1327.

The many chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death are accounted for; they are documented in essential detail in Ian Mortimer's essay. Dr Mortimer reports: "All the chronicles ... were dependent on Lord Berkeley's announcement of the death"; which message, we now know, was "sent in bad faith". These facts impeach all the multivarious "information stream", i.e., the chronicles and the rumours, that flow from the Berkeley announcement. (There has been no contemporary chronicler found —i.e., none identified in the 14th century— who reported what happened to Edward II after he was deposed; for good reason: he was a prisoner held incommmunicado, i.e., no visitors, no letters or reports, and no public knowledge of his exact whereabouts were permitted.)

Historian Mortimer prominently mentions the contemporary chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— and Murimuth clerked for Edward II for a time. Thus, it is telling that: only after some five years after the supposed event, and then only as "common rumour" Murimuth first >>>reported that Edward had been suffocated. Further, Mortimer writes: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire". The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated only that he had been "possibly strangled". It is critical to note: none of these chroniclers' accounts of Edward's death have been authenticated; invariably, they all follow after the 'death' report sourced to Lord Berkeley —which proved false.

Fact: Edward II's actual death is still, today, a mystery —the details pertaining to his death, especially when and where, are yet to be discovered, analysed, interpreted and published for peer review by a competent historian and scholar.

"This account is uncorroborated..."
After Lord Berkley's report in late 1327 —depicting a benign death for Edward— came infusions of rumour describing Edward's death by violent means, of several variations. Most, or all, of these tales apparently originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Roger Mortimer's life and short reign were both terminated in November, 1330. These stories were prodigiously copied by chroniclers and others; there are no first-hand sources for any of these extant tales.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the most exaggeratedly violent of them all, that is, the pornoviolent account of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently written by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides (see the longer "Brut" chronicle, ed. F. W. D. Brie). The lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless 'legs'; i.e., to be told and re-told into the future, for entertainment value rather than for truth, as the tale was never authenticated. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, it became infamous as a fable and invaluable as a tourist attraction, thriving yet today (see Berkeley Castle). "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source"; or by any first-hand source researched by modern scholarship standards.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. Consequently, as soon as young Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October, 1330, he moved, stealthily, to have Roger Mortimer siezed. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, and particularly for the murder of Edward II, presumably removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.

endPUB2/0514- t--ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZftr

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee062109t1

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee062509t3

The regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In April 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and placed in custody of Mortimer's subordinates. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, Edward died —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Roger Mortimer.

Contrarily, recent research of professional historian and scholar Dr Ian Mortimer —first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and in a 2005 paper in The English Historical Review, his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate— provides definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327. According to Mortimer, instead of being murdered in the year 1327, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy.

In 2008, Dr Mortimer published his 2005 formal paper in an abridged version: "A Note on the Deaths of Edward II", linked here and below. This section reports several key points of Mortimer's lengthy 2008 essay, referring to it as source several times —specifically identifying five contemporary survival reports with 'first-hand' sources. (By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or backed-up, by authenticated underlying information; that is, by information researched and adjudged authentic by a competent historian/scholar.)---n

CThe regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In April, 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and placed in custody of Mortimer's subordinates. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, Edward died —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Mortimer.

Contrarily, recent research of professional historian and scholar Dr. Ian Mortimer — first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and in a 2005 essay in The English Historical Review - his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate — provides definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327; instead of being murdered that year, Mortimer argues, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy.

Dr Mortimer argues that Edward's 'survival' is a matter of certainty, as documented in his essay "A note on the deaths of Edward II", linked below. This section reports several key points of Mortimer's lengthy essay, especially identifying 'first-hand' sources of contemporary 'survival' reports. (By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or 'backed-up', by authenticated 'underlying information'; that is, by information researched and adjudged authentic by a competent historian/scholar.CC

Incommunicado and escape
After January 1327 under aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept incommunicado at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'. Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. In late September 1327, came the news the old king had died, of "grief-induced illness". This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was announced by two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the young king (Edward III, age 14)— both delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important persons in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present for the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.

Historian Mortimer's 2008 work —the "...Deaths of Edward..." essay— establishes that Lord Berkeley's announcement now is the only source reporting the death of Edward that now is authenticated. At the same time, Mortimer's essay also reports information that repudiates, as false, the actual content of Berkeley's report, i.e., information that proves Lord Berkeley's 'death' message was given "in bad faith" (see below).

As contemporary events evolved after 1327, it became apparent to a few observant people that the old king must still be alive and that Lord Berkeley's report —that King Edward had died— was "issued in bad faith"; and, therefore, it must have been a ruse. To be sure, it became a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented in several public venues for public mourning over a suitable period of time; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenticate. But, it was a ruse nontheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight.

And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward. And there was at least one contemporary chronicler who reported the state funeral with words of suspicion (see below). The "...Deaths of Edward..." essay reports a minimum of three (3) independent survival reports by the year 1330, of Edward still in England, from first-hand sources; and a fourth, referenced by the Fieschi Letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy, and perhaps other venues in Europe. In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir also supports the theory, based on the Fieschi Letter, that Edward escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile.

Sources, chroniclers' reports, and mystery
Most critically, a different line (of facts) refers to another critical first-hand source, this one disclosing a very likely witness (not necessarily an eye witness) to Edward's survival who was Roger Mortimer himself, to wit: in March 1330 —some two years after Edward's reported death and state funeral— the record shows that Edmund, Earl of Kent, (half-brother to Edward; son of king Edward I), was charged, brought before parliament, and convicted of conspiring to rescue Edward from imprisonment, with intent to "help him" be "king again". Also as a matter of record, Kent was executed for this conspiracy.

The instigator —for prosecuting and executing a man who learned that Edward was still alive— was Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, co-regent and chief of government. The obvious implication of Roger Mortimer's prosecution of Kent is that he (Kent) had discovered what Mortimer knew: that Edward was still alive, and, therefore, for Roger Mortimer, in the year 1330, Kent was a threat who, with his friends, might maneuver to rescue and restore Edward to the throne.

These five survival reports —all based on first-hand sources— plus others documented in the "...Deaths of Edward.." essay, specifically belie the singular death report published by Lord Berkeley in late 1327. There has not been found a contemporary chronicler who reported directly after Edward was deposed what happened to him —and for good reason: the old king was a prisoner held incommmunicado, i.e., no visitors, no letters or reports, and no public knowledge of his exact whereabouts were permitted.

The contemporary sources reporting Edward's 'deaths' are accounted for; they are all documented in the "...Deaths of Edward.." essay, where Dr Mortimer reports: "All the chronicles ... were dependent on Lord Berkeley's announcement of the death", which message, we now know, was "sent in bad faith". These facts impeach all the multivarious "information stream", i.e., the chronicles and the rumours, that flow from the Berkeley announcement. Thus, none of these (chronicle) sources are authenticatable.

The "...Deaths of Edward..." essay prominently mentions the contemporary chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— and Murimuth clerked for Edward II for a time. It is a telling point: only as "common rumour", did Murimuth report a cause for Edward's 'death' —i.e., "suffocation"— and that some five years after the supposed event. Further, the essay reports: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire". The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated only that he had been "possibly strangled".

Fact: Edward II's actual death is still, today, a mystery —details pertaining to his death, especially when and where, are yet to be discovered, analysed, interpreted and published for peer review by a competent historian and scholar.

"This account is uncorroborated..."
After Lord Berkley's report in late 1327 —depicting a benign death for Edward— came infusions of rumour describing Edward's 'deaths' by violent means, of several variations. Most of these tales apparently originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Roger Mortimer was executed in November 1330. The extant stories were copied by chroniclers and others; there are no first-hand sources for any of these tales of Edward's various 'deaths'.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the most exaggeratedly violent rumour of them all, that is, the pornoviolent account of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently written by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Roger Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides (see the longer "Brut" chronicle, ed. F. W. D. Brie; "...Deaths of Edward.." essay). This lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless legs; i.e., to be told and re-told into the future, for entertainment value rather than for truth, as the tale was never authenticated. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, it became infamous as a fable and invaluable as a tourist attraction, thriving yet today (see Berkeley Castle). "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source"; or by any first-hand source researched by modern scholarship standards.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. When young Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October 1330, he moved to have Roger Mortimer seized. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, including for murder of Edward II, presumably removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.

xxxxxxxxxxxxeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee062509t3

ffffffffffffffttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfffffffffftttttttttrrrrrrr/ftr0707

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda
The regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In April 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and placed in custody of Mortimer's subordinates. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, Edward died —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Roger Mortimer. Contrarily, recent research by professional historian Dr Ian Mortimer —first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and in a 2005 paper in The English Historical Review, his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate— provides definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327. According to Mortimer, instead of being murdered in the year 1327, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy.

In 2008, Dr Mortimer published his 2005 formal paper in an abridged version: "A Note on the Deaths of Edward II", linked here and below. This section reports several key points of Mortimer's lengthy 2008 essay, referring to it as source several times —specifically identifying five contemporary survival reports with 'first-hand' sources. (By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or backed-up, by authenticated underlying information; that is, by information researched and adjudged authentic by a competent historian/scholar.)

Incommunicado and escape
After January 1327 under aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept incommunicado at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'. Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. In late September 1327, came the news the old king had died, of "grief-induced illness". This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was announced by two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the young king (Edward III, age 14)— both delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important persons in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present for the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.

Historian Mortimer's 2008 work —the "...Deaths of Edward..." essay— establishes that Lord Berkeley's announcement is the only source reporting the death of Edward that now is authenticated. At the same time, Mortimer's essay also reports information that repudiates, as false, the actual content of Berkeley's report, i.e., information that proves Lord Berkeley's 'death' message was given "in bad faith" (see below).

As contemporary events evolved after 1327, it became apparent to a few observant people that the old king must still be alive and that Lord Berkeley's report —that King Edward had died— was "issued in bad faith"; and, therefore, it must have been a ruse. To be sure, it became a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented in several public venues for public mourning over a suitable period of time; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenticate. But, it was a ruse nontheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight.

And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward. And there was at least one contemporary chronicler who reported the state funeral with words of suspicion (see below). The "...Deaths of Edward..." essay reports a minimum of three (3) independent survival reports by the year 1330, of Edward still in England, from first-hand sources; and a fourth, referenced by the Fieschi Letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy, and perhaps other venues in Europe. In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir also supports the theory, based on the Fieschi Letter, that Edward escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile.

Sources, chroniclers' reports, and mystery
Most critically, a different line (of facts) refers to another critical first-hand source, this one disclosing a very likely witness (not necessarily an eye witness) to Edward's survival who was Roger Mortimer himself, to wit: in March 1330 —some two years after Edward's reported death and state funeral— the record shows that Edmund, Earl of Kent, (half-brother to Edward; son of king Edward I), was charged, brought before parliament, and convicted of conspiring to rescue Edward from imprisonment, with intent to "help him" be "king again". And, as a matter of record, Kent was executed for this conspiracy.

The instigator —for prosecuting and executing a man who learned that Edward was still alive— was Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, co-regent and chief of government. The obvious implication of Roger Mortimer's prosecution of Kent is that he (Kent) had discovered what Mortimer knew: that Edward was still alive, and, therefore, for Roger Mortimer, in the year 1330, Kent was a threat who, with his friends, might maneuver to rescue and restore Edward to the throne.

These five survival reports —all based on first-hand sources— plus others documented in the "...Deaths of Edward.." essay, specifically belie the singular death report published by Lord Berkeley in late 1327. There has not been found a contemporary chronicler who reported directly after Edward was deposed what happened to him —and for good reason: the old king was a prisoner held incommmunicado, i.e., no visitors, no letters or reports, and no public knowledge of his exact whereabouts were permitted.

The contemporary sources reporting Edward's 'deaths' are accounted for; they are all documented in the "...Deaths of Edward.." essay, where Dr Mortimer reports: "All the chronicles ... were dependent on Lord Berkeley's announcement of the death", which message, we now know, was "sent in bad faith". These facts impeach all the multivarious "information stream", i.e., the chronicles and the rumours, that flow from the Berkeley announcement. Thus, none of these (chronicle) sources are authenticatable.

The "...Deaths of Edward..." essay prominently mentions the contemporary chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— and Murimuth clerked for Edward II for a time. It is a telling point: only as "common rumour", did Murimuth report a cause for Edward's 'death' —i.e., "suffocation"— and that some five years after the supposed event. Further, the essay reports: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire". The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated only that he had been "possibly strangled".

Fact: Edward II's actual death is still, today, a mystery —details pertaining to his death, especially when and where, are yet to be discovered, analysed, interpreted and published for peer review by a competent historian and scholar.

"This account is uncorroborated..."
After Lord Berkley's report in late 1327 —depicting a benign death for Edward— came infusions of rumour describing Edward's 'deaths' by violent means, of several variations. Most of these tales apparently originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Roger Mortimer was executed in November 1330. The extant stories were copied by chroniclers and others; there are no first-hand sources for any of these tales of Edward's various 'deaths'.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the most exaggeratedly violent rumour of them all, that is, the pornoviolent account of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently written by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Roger Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides (see the longer "Brut" chronicle, ed. F. W. D. Brie; "...Deaths of Edward.." essay). This lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless legs; i.e., to be told and re-told into the future, for entertainment value rather than for truth, as the tale was never authenticated. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, it became infamous as a fable and invaluable as a tourist attraction, thriving yet today (see Berkeley Castle). "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source"; or by any first-hand source researched by modern scholarship standards.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. When young Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October 1330, he moved to have Roger Mortimer seized. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, including for murder of Edward II, presumably removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.

ffffffffffffffttttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfffffffffftttttttttrrrrrrr/ftr0707

DRAFTffffffffftttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfffffffffftttttttttrrrrrrr/ftr0707t1

Death or Survival: Mystery and Propaganda
The regency government of Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer was so precarious they dared not leave the deposed King Edward in the hands of their political enemies. In April 1327, Edward was removed from Kenilworth Castle and placed in custody of Mortimer's subordinates. Thereafter, knowledge of Edward's daily life and whereabouts were deliberately shrouded by his keepers' efforts to keep the 'old' king secluded and incommunicado. He was interned at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, the seat of Thomas de Berkeley, Mortimer's son-in-law. There, according to various scripts of chroniclers and others, Edward died —it was rumoured about that he was murdered, by agents of Isabella and Roger Mortimer. Contrarily, recent research by professional historian and scholar Dr Ian Mortimer —first, his 2003 biography Roger Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor; then his 2006 biography Edward III; and in a 2005 paper in The English Historical Review, his authoritative analysis of the specific question about Edward II's fate— provides definitive evidence that refutes previous reports and tales of Edward's 'early' death. Disclosing facts that refer back to 'first-hand' sources, historian Mortimer presents convincing evidence and interpretation that Edward lived, reclusively, for at least 14 years after he was deposed in 1327. According to Mortimer, instead of being murdered in the year 1327, Edward survived, and ultimately fled England and died a recluse, if not a monk, many years later in Italy. In 2008, Dr Mortimer published his 2005 formal paper in an abridged version: "A Note on the Deaths of Edward II", linked here and below.

Nota bene: This section reports several key points of Dr Mortimer's lengthy 2008 essay, referring to it as source several times —specifically identifying five contemporary 'survival' reports with 'first-hand' sources that particularly refute the only 'death' report that has been authenticated (see below). By 'first-hand' source is meant a contemporary person or thing whose reputed action is referenced, or backed-up, by authenticated underlying information; that is, by information researched and adjudged authentic by a competent historian/scholar.

Incommunicado and escape
After January 1327 under aegis of parliament, Edward was being kept incommunicado at Berkeley Castle —imprisoned as it were— for his own 'safekeeping'. Soon, however, the exigencies of power politics began to play out. In late September 1327, came the news the old king had died, of "grief-induced illness". This 'death' report, from Lord Berkeley himself, was announced by two letters —one to co-regent Queen Isabella, the other to her son, the young king (Edward III, age 14)— both delivered at Lincoln, where both royals were in residence at the time. After hearing the report, on the very next day (that is, 24 September 1327) the young king began spreading the news among the many important persons in and around Lincoln at the time —most of whom were present for the sitting of parliament there, which had just concluded.

Historian Mortimer's 2008 work —the "...Deaths of Edward..." essay— establishes that Lord Berkeley's announcement is the only source reporting the death of Edward that now is authenticated. At the same time, Mortimer's essay also reports information that repudiates, as 'false', the actual content of Berkeley's report, i.e., information that proves Lord Berkeley's 'death' message was given "in bad faith" (see below).

As contemporary events evolved after 1327, it became apparent to a few observant people that the old king must still be alive and that Lord Berkeley's report —that King Edward had died— was "issued in bad faith"; and, therefore, it must have been a ruse. To be sure, it became a very successful ruse —in that a shrouded dead body (or, by turns, a carved wooden effigy) was presented in several public venues for public mourning over a suitable period of time; and a proper funeral for a king was conducted by high church and government officials acting in good faith, as historical records authenticate. But, it was a ruse nontheless. Because, in due time the old king Edward was seen alive, after his supposed death and funeral, by people who knew him by sight.

And there was one person —whom the young king Edward spoke to at the time of the funeral— that is, the woman embalmer, who knew the dead man she embalmed was not the old king Edward. And there was at least one contemporary chronicler who reported the state funeral with words of suspicion (see below). The "...Deaths of Edward..." essay reports a minimum of three (3) independent survival reports by the year 1330, of Edward still in England, from first-hand sources; and a fourth, referenced by the Fieschi Letter, which documents that Edward escaped England to live anonymously in Italy, and perhaps other venues in Europe. In her biography of the king's wife Isabella, Alison Weir also supports the theory, based on the Fieschi Letter, that Edward escaped imprisonment and lived the rest of his life in exile.

Sources, chroniclers' reports, and mystery
Most critically, a different line (of facts) refers to another critical first-hand source, this one disclosing a very likely witness (not necessarily an eye witness) to Edward's survival who was Roger Mortimer himself, to wit: in March 1330 —some two years after Edward's reported death and state funeral— the record shows that Edmund, Earl of Kent, (half-brother to Edward; son of king Edward I), was charged, brought before parliament, and convicted of conspiring to rescue Edward from imprisonment, with intent to "help him" be "king again". And, as a matter of record, Kent was executed for this conspiracy.

The instigator —for prosecuting and executing a man who learned that Edward was still alive— was Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, co-regent and chief of government. The obvious implication of Roger Mortimer's prosecution of Kent is that he (Kent) had discovered what Mortimer knew: that Edward was still alive, and, therefore, for Roger Mortimer, in the year 1330, Kent was a threat who, with his friends, might maneuver to rescue and restore Edward to the throne.

These five survival reports —all based on first-hand sources— plus others documented in the "...Deaths of Edward.." essay, specifically belie the singular death report published by Lord Berkeley in late 1327. There has not been found a contemporary chronicler who reported directly after Edward was deposed what happened to him —and for good reason: the old king was a prisoner held incommmunicado, i.e., no visitors, no letters or reports, and no public knowledge of his exact whereabouts were permitted.

The contemporary sources reporting Edward's 'deaths' are accounted for; they are all documented in the "...Deaths of Edward.." essay, where Dr Mortimer reports: "All the chronicles ... were dependent on Lord Berkeley's announcement of the death", which message, we now know, was "sent in bad faith". These facts impeach all the multivarious "information stream", i.e., the chronicles and the rumours, that flow from the Berkeley announcement. Thus, none of these (chronicle) sources are authenticatable.

The "...Deaths of Edward..." essay prominently mentions the contemporary chronicler closest to the scene, Adam Murimuth —his career as clerk and chronicler flourished during the 1320s until his death in 1347— and Murimuth clerked for Edward II for a time. It is a telling point: only as "common rumour", did Murimuth report a cause for Edward's 'death' —i.e., "suffocation"— and that some five years after the supposed event. Further, the essay reports: "Murimuth is the only chronicler who refers to the ex-king's lying-in-state, and he mentions that his body was seen only superficially by the people of Bristol and Gloucestershire". The Lichfield chronicle, equally reflecting local opinion, stated only that he had been "possibly strangled".

Fact: Edward II's actual death is still, today, a mystery —details pertaining to his death, especially when and where, are yet to be discovered, analysed, interpreted and published for peer review by a competent historian and scholar.

"This account is uncorroborated..."
After Lord Berkley's report in late 1327 —depicting a benign death for Edward— came infusions of rumour describing Edward's 'deaths' by violent means, of several variations. Most of these tales apparently originated as political propaganda against the regents Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella; and they continued after Roger Mortimer was executed in November 1330. The extant stories were copied by chroniclers and others; there are no first-hand sources for any of these tales of Edward's various 'deaths'.

In the mid-1330s —almost a decade after the alleged horrors depicted— was first reported the most exaggeratedly violent rumour of them all, that is, the pornoviolent account of Edward's murder-by-hot-metal-rod-driven-up-his-anus. This story was apparently written by Lancastrian polemicists with intent to paint Roger Mortimer and his partisans as salacious regicides (see the 'longer' "Brut" chronicle, ed. F. W. D. Brie; "...Deaths of Edward.." essay). This lurid and ghoulish tale proved very popular with the public and gained wide circulation; it also gained timeless legs; i.e., to be told and re-told into the future, for entertainment value rather than for truth, as the tale was never authenticated. Obviously a construct of political propaganda, it became infamous as a fable and invaluable as a tourist attraction, thriving yet today (see Berkeley Castle). "This account is uncorroborated by any contemporary source"; or by any first-hand source researched by modern scholarship standards.

Following the public announcement of the king's death, the regency rule of Isabella and Mortimer did not last long. They made peace with the Scots by the Treaty of Northampton, but this move was highly unpopular. When young Edward III came (essentially) of age, in October 1330, he moved to have Roger Mortimer seized. Without benefit of trial, he executed Mortimer on fourteen charges of treason, including for murder of Edward II, presumably removing any doubt (among the public) about the old king's death and the young king's proper succession. Edward III spared his mother, but ensured that she retired from public life for several years. She died at Hertford in 1358.

DRAFTfffffttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfffffffffftttttttttrrrrrrr/ftr0709t4

xxxxx

Re-writing 'Death'; reporting the mystery:

I have rewritten the section (previously) titled 'Death' —to improve this article by reporting the rigorous and definitive reseach of Dr Ian Mortimer, a scholar and professional historian who is currently very active in this field; he has recently published authoritative analyses and convincing argument that:  >>> in 1327, in merry olde England, Edward II did not die, was not murdered, nor assassinated; and he was not even tortured to death —'compleate' with great horrific dollops of pornoviolent drama for titillating 14th- and 21st-century audiences<<< (BTW: not Dr M's words!).

Instead, Mortimer argues, the evidence shows that Edward was seen in England and known to be alive in and after the year 1330; that he survived and escaped the confines of Berkeley Castle and England itself, apparently to find near-anonymous exile in western Europe until his eventual death in northern Italy. The new material is sourced almost entirely on Mortimer's lengthy essay, "A note on the deaths of Edward II", which is linked.

My narrative is almost completely sourced on Ian Mortimer's essay, and is essentially a selective reporting of the same. I urge every person interested in (contentious) history issues to read Dr Mortimer's "..deaths of Edward II" essay, in its entirety, to appreciate the scholarship and rigorous methods involved with professional historical research.

As a convenience for tracking to Mortimer's essay, I posted the new narrative twice. First time: several main points are 'marked' with a cross-reference, e.g.[REF para 99] to the essay; then the second, official posting, loses the 'marks'. (By clicking the "prev" option (history page) on the second posting, the reader can display the cross-reference 'marks' in 'stand-out' red, for easy reading.)

xx29

xx0602 x-xxxxxxx

REPLY RE: Tsength>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I  :::::I note>. Re 'Ian Mortimer' being mentioned in the narrative, you write: "It seems unduly laudatory of Ian Mortimer and not at all NPOV." (And, I reply)> This is only opinion, but you provide no "facts"-at-issue --specific phrases from the narrative-- that informs such opinion. And I cannot find any phrases (in the narrative) meeting the criteria unduly laudatory, or not NPOV. If, please, you will provide the phrasing that informs your generalized complaint, then I will reply to the facts-at-issure you raise --to clarify, disagree, or to correct the narrative

II But you did raised two "facts"-at-issue, to wit:  (1). "the repeated emphasis that Mortimer is a historian...  seems unwarranted";  and, (2). "...there's no need to say much about how good a job Mortimer did...", and in the same ilk, "...don't talk about him so much."

(And, I reply)> Re (1), I used "historian" as title, which is not unreasonable, nor uncommonly done; I couuld have used other titles such as a Professor, (Prof), Dr --or none at all. To some perhaps, "historian' may occur more times than seems necessary, but I was conderned here that each time the name " Mortimer" occurred that the reader be noticed that it was clearly either "Roger Mortimer" or (historian)"Ian Mortimer" being referred to; i.e., there to be little chance, pre-ferably none, of confusing the two names in the narrative. (There is also the problem of 'promiscuous pronouns' causing confusion as 'to whom' do they refer...)

zz-zzz0602

rrrrr0606


 * Tsenght: (I note)> (1)' You raised two "facts"-at-issue, to wit:  1.  "the repeated emphasis that Mortimer is a historian...   seems unwarranted";  and, 2.  "...there's no need to say so much about how good a job Mortimer did...", and in the same ilk,  "...don't talk about him so much." (My italics/emphasis).

(I reply)> Re (1), I used "historian" as a title, which is not unreasonable, nor uncommonly done;  I could have used other titles such as a Professor, Prof, or Dr --or none at all. To some perhaps, "historian" may occur more time than seems necessary, but I was concerned here that each time the name "Mortimer" occurred that the reader be noticed clearly that it was either "Roger Mortimer" or (historian) "Ian Mortimer" being referred to; i.e., there to be little chance, preferably none, of confusing the two names in the narrative.


 * Further I note> (2)'. Re 'Ian Mortimer' being mentioned in the narrative, you write: "It seems unduly laudatory of Ian Mortimer and not at all NPOV." (My italics/emphasis).

(And, I reply)> This is opinion, and you provide no "facts"-at-issue --specific phrases from the narrative-- that informs such opinion, and which facilitates (non-argumentative) reply. And I myself (surprise!) cannot find any phrases (in the narrative) meeting the criteria unduly laudatory or not NPOV. If, please, you will provide the phrasing that informs your generalized complaint, then I will reply to the facts-at-issure you raise --to clarify, disagree, or to correct the narrative.

rrrrrr0606

This is the first of two postings of the same narrative —pls see discussion —and the second (=next) posting).

XFACT: Edward II's actual death is (still) a mystery; IMO, wikipedia should report this as FACT —prominently— wherever in the wikiproject his 'death' is mentioned; we gain no good —in our methods or reputation— by indulging the human appetite for gossip, propaganda and pornoviolence, especially when we know, or have reason to suspect, that it has never been authenticated as fact.

Xindulging the human appetite for gossip, propaganda and pornoviolence, especially when we know, or strongly suspect, that it has been authenticated.

XThe new narrative can easily be tracked to sources in Mortimer's essay by this cross-reference, [REF para 99], wh xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0427


 * Mortimer, Ian (2006)

--References--


 * Mortimer, Ian. The Greatest Traitor: the Life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, Ruler of England 1327-1330. Thomas Dunne Books, 2003. ISBN 0-312-34941-6
 * Mortimer, Ian. The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III Father of the English Nation. Jonathan Cape, 2006. ISBN 9780224073011 Appendix 2: The fake death of Edward II; Appendix 3: A note on the later life of Edward II
 * Mortimer, Ian.'Note on the deaths of Edward II'(2008)
 * Weir, Alison, 'Isabella, She-Wolf of France', Jonathan Cape, 2005, ISBN 0224063200

--External Links--


 * Mortimer, Ian (2008).'Note on the deaths of Edward II'

xx

X---Incommunicado/False reports/? and escape---Ian Mortimer essay summmarized--- X that is, the only one for which there are authenticated events that refer back to first-hand actions (in this case, Berekeley's two letters) as source. X Considering the logic of the contemporary politics, it is easily dismissed on several points —not least for the tardiness of its appearance— but largely for the implausibility that Roger Mortimer, by authorizing such a salaciously violent killing, would be so foolish as to create a martyr of the unpopular Edward, while instantly provoking enmity in Edward's young son, King Edward III.

XPlus, there were at least four additional authenticated... XMost chronicles did not offer a cause of death other than natural causes. XBased upon rigorous analyis of facts that make reference to 'first-hand' sources,

x--x

Re Fieschi Letter:

Provenance of the letter The letter was discovered by a French archivist in the binding of an official register dated 1368 which had been the property of Gaucelm de Deaux, Bishop of Maguelonne, and was preserved in the Archives Departmentales d'Herault at Montpelier. It is still there today. The letter has been tested and is not a later forgery. Fieschi is a well known historical figure. He had several livings in England and knew the country though the letter shows a confusion between the rank of a knight and that of a lord.

[edit] Case of the supporters of the letter No one doubts the authenticity of Fieschi's letter, only its veracity, and it contains details that few people knew at the time and was written long before the accepted accounts of the flight, imprisonment and murder.

Using contemporary methods techniques, Dr Ian Mortimer (University of Exeter, UK) has been able to demonstrate in a peer-reviewed article in the English Historical Review (vol cxx, 2005) that it is 'almost certain' that Edward II did not die in 1327. He has subsequently published an on-line simplification of this argument, which is freely available. [1] Note that Mortimer's research only proves that the news of Edward II's death in 1327 was false; it does not automatically follow that the Fieschi letter is what it purports to be.

Edward II knew that he had no support at home and never tried to regain the throne, especially after his son, Edward III, had removed Roger Mortimer. In the Italian town of Cecima, (75 km from Milan), there is a tradition that a king of England was buried there and there is an empty mediaeval tomb said to be the place of his burial before his body was repatriated to England by his son.

The elaborate funeral in Gloucester of the person supposed to be Edward II may have been that of the gate-keeper. Many local dignitaries were invited to view the body from a distance, but it had been embalmed and may have been unrecognisable. For the first time a carved wooden effigy of the dead king was carried through the streets rather than the body on a bier.

Diplomatic documents also show in 1338 that Edward III travelled to Koblenz to be installed as Vicar of the Holy Roman Empire and there he met someone called William le Galeys, or William the Welshman, who claimed to be the king's father. (Edward II was born in Caernarvon and was the first English-born Prince of Wales.) Claiming to be the king's father would have been dangerous, and it is not known what happened to William. Some historians claim that the person was William Ockle.

[edit] Case of the opponents of the letter Opponents of the letter say that the letter is an attempt by the bishop of Maguelone who had been sent to Germany to disrupt an Anglo-German alliance. The letter may therefore be an attempt to blackmail Edward III by undermining his position at the German court. Fieschi held various church appointments in England from 1319 and may also have been attempting to gain royal patronage. xxx


 * Mortimer, Ian..

essessessessessessessessessessessessessessessessessessess0615

Two radical new views were put forward almost simultaneously in early 2003 by Dr Paul Doherty, in his Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (Constable and Robinson, 2003), and by me in my The Greatest Traitor: the life of Sir Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, Ruler of England 1327-1330 (Cape, 2003). Doherty boldly suggested a plethora of alternative readings of the evidence but failed to come to a certain conclusion, or to prove anything new. He thinks that Edward II did escape from Berkeley but that the Fieschi letter itself was a clever forgery. As for my own book, although the argument I put forward was not fully worked out, it had at its core an information-based argument. Having a scholarly background, I would not have chosen to go with such a radical piece of revisionist thinking if it depended only on a possibility or a plausibility. This marked the beginning of my attempt to make the discussion more rigorous.

2005 saw several publications on the death appear. Alison Weir published an account of the faked death in her Isabella: She-wolf of France, Queen of England (2005), drawing heavily on my work and Paul Doherty's Isabella. And J. R. S. Phillips published his 2003 essay ‘Edward II in Italy: English and Welsh Political Exiles and Fugitives in Continental Europe, 1322 – 1365’, in Michael Prestwich, Richard Hugh Britnell and Robin Frame (eds), Thirteenth century England 10: proceedings of the Durham conference 2003 (2005), pp. 209–226. Phillips did not engage with my argument that Edward II survived; he simply presumed I was wrong. However, his article is very interesting for the reason he gives much more detail about the Fieschi letter, and in particular notes that the same register in which it appears contains a second Fieschi-related document, relating to Niccolinus Fieschi, whom I suggested might have brought the original Fieschi letter to England in April 1336.

Also published in 2005, in December, was my article, ‘The Death of Edward II in Berkeley Castle’, English Historical Review 120 (2005), pp. 1175–1214. Readers seriously interested in this subject should refer to this. An abstract is available here: you need a subscription to E.H.R. to see the whole piece. It remains the most detailed and methodologically thorough piece on the subject published to date.

essessessessessessessessessessessessessessessessessessess0615

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR--_____-RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRR--_____-RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

052909t

rubber
0712t4 Natural rubber is a natural polymer, and an elastomer, i.e., an elastic polymer-chain hydrocarbon monomer. It is derived from a milky colloidal suspension, or latex, found in the sap of various plants. It is especially useful for its qualities of repelling water and retaining (pressurized) air, and for its elasticity —the abilty to stretch (i.e., deform under a load force) and return to its original shape. The purified form of natural rubber is the chemical polyisoprene which can also be produced synthetically.

Natural rubber is used extensively in many applications and products, as is synthetic rubber. In 1934, Werner Kuhn developed an entropy model of rubber for explaining the elastic and thermodynamic behaviour of rubber. In 1986, on a very cold day in Florida, humanity learned yet again, —this time spectaculously and disastrously— nature's limits for elasticity in rubber. Contents [show] 1 Varieties 2 Discovery of commercial potential 3 Properties 4 Solvents 5 Chemical makeup 5.1 Elasticity 6 Current sources 6.1 Cultivation 6.2 Collection 7 Uses 7.1 Pre-historical uses 7.2 Manufacturing 7.3 Textile applications 8 Vulcanization 9 Allergic reactions 10 See also 11 References 12 External links

[edit] Varieties

The =Pará rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis), a member of the spurge family Euphorbiaceae, is the major commercial source of natural rubber because, of all natural sources, it responds to =rubber tapping —cutting the latex vessels located just under the bark of the tree— by producing the greatest quantities of latex.

Other plants containing latex include =gutta-percha (Palaquium gutta),[1] rubber fig (Ficus elastica), Panama rubber tree (Castilla elastica), spurges (Euphorbia spp.), lettuce, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), Russian dandelion (Taraxacum kok-saghyz), Scorzonera tau-saghyz, and =guayule (Parthenium argentatum). Although not productive sources of rubber, Germany tried developing these during World War II when it was cut off from overseas rubber supplies;[citation needed] it also attempted to develop synthetic rubbers. (The term "gum rubber" is sometimes used for tree-produced natural rubber to distinguish it from synthetic versions.)

[edit] Discovery of commercial potential; brief history

Charles Marie de La Condamine is credited with introducing samples of rubber to Europe, in 1736, at the Académie Royale des Sciences of France.[2] In 1751, he presented there the (apparent) first scientific paper on rubber, which described many properties of natural rubber; the paper was authored by François Fresneau and was published in 1755.[2] The first European to return, from South America, with samples of water-repellent rubberized cloth so shocked people (in Portugal) he was brought to court on charges of witchcraft. When samples first arrived in England, Joseph Priestley, in 1770, found it extremely effective for rubbing out pencil marks on paper; hence the name rubber.

The Pará rubber tree (Hevea) was discovered in South America, which area [\]essentially enjoyed a monopoly on the production of latex and rubber during much of the 19th century. Then, in 1876, Henry Wickham, a British naturalist and explorer, managed to smuggle thousands of =Para tree seeds out of Brazil; he escorted them to Kew Gardens, UK, and oversaw their sucessful germination there. Seedlings were then sent to various British holdings in tropical climes: Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Indonesia, Singapore and British Malaya. Liberia and Nigeria in Africa soon also established =Para tree plantations [\] for production of rubber. In time, Malaya (now Malaysia) became the biggest producer of natural rubber.

Meanwhile, Belgium's Leopold II conceived blood-plans to seize vast holdings of territory in the African Congo --therby to produce latex and natural rubber with slave- and brutally-forced labour; which he grand scheme he pursued to the point of death-by-genocide of millions of people in Africa. Purely for the greed envisioned of 'getting in on the ground floor' of industrial use of rubber, Leopold produced the first and possibly the largest genocide since the beginning of the 20th century. Beginning as a "private" scheme in 190__ by Leopold and his fellow investors --and his avid field direction __ __ Stanley-- and continued by the Belgian government until the 1920's, rubber production for blood and death made millions for king and country for a pittance of labour costs; i.e., of hardly more expense than disposing of the human bodies --itself not a great problem in an area blessed with plenteous supplies of rivers and crocodiles. By ____, commercial cultivation of natural rubber was introduced in India by British planters, although experimental efforts to grow trees there were started by 1873 at the Botanical Gardens, Kolkata. In 1902 the first commercial Hevea plantations were established at Thattekadu in Kerala.

[edit] Chemistry, including Elasticity

Natural rubber is a polymer of isoprene, most often cis-1,4-polyisoprene —with a molar mass of 100,000 to 1,000,000 g/mol, depending upon the size of the polymer. Typically, a few percent of other materials, such as proteins, fatty acids, resins and inorganic materials are found in natural rubber. Polyisoprene is also created synthetically, producing what is sometimes referred to as "synthetic natural" rubber. Some natural rubber (gutta percha) is trans-1,4-polyisoprene, a structural isomer which has similar, but not identical properties.

Natural rubber is an elastomer and a natural thermoplastic, whereas vulcanization, see below, will change it to a thermoset. Most rubber in everyday use is vulcanized to a point of sharing properties of both states; i.e., if heated and cooled, it may be degraded but not destroyed.

[edit] Elasticity

'Elastic' refers to the behaviour of any material that accepts strain, i.e. it stretches, or crunches, when a (normative) force is applied, then returns to its original shape when the force is removed. All rubbers are elastomers, which exhibit 'elastic' behaviour, but not all materials exhibiting elastic behaviour are elastomers. (In many elastic materials, such as metal springs, the elastic behavior is caused by bond distortions. When force is applied, bond lengths deviate from the minimum energy equilibrium and strain energy is stored electrostatically.) In rubber, unlike metals, strain energy is stored thermally.

In a relaxed state rubber typically consists of numerous long, coiled polymer-chains of hydrocarbon monomers, interlinked at a few points. Between linkpoints each monomer can rotate freely about its neighbour. This gives each section of chain leeway to move through a large number of geometries —for example, as a very loose rope attached to a pair of fixed points. At room temperature rubber stores kinetic energy, which causes each chain section to oscillate chaotically —as a very loose rope being shaken violently. When a tensile force is applied the rubber is stretched and the 'loose pieces of rope' are made taut; they are no longer able to oscillate. Their kinetic energy is now changed to thermal energy (heat); and entropy decreases.

Kuhn, applying the Boltzmann equation as the Boltzmann entropy formula,


 * $$S = k \log W \!$$

theorized that, for rubber, change in entropy (S) is explained as follows; at a given temperature, a tight section of (polymer) chain is constrained to fold in fewer ways than for a loose section of chain —i.e., W, Boltzmann's calculation of the number of different "ways" the thermodynamic state of a system can be realized, is diminished. Thus, Kuhn's "rubber band entropy model": entropy decreases going (from the relaxed) to the stretched state, and increases returning to the relaxed state. He concluded that relaxing a stretched rubber band is driven by an increase in entropy. The force experienced is not electrostatic; rather it is the result of thermal energy being converted to kinetic energy.

Stretching a rubber band is analogous to compressing an ideal gas —and its relaxation is equivalent to the gas's expansion. (A compressed gas also exhibits 'elastic' properties, as, for instance, inside an inflated tire.) That stretching and compression are equivalent seems counter-intuitive, but makes sense if rubber is viewed as a one-dimensional gas. Stretching reduces the 'space' available to each section of chain to oscillate, as compression reduces space to each molecule of gas to oscillate.

Vulcanizing rubber creates more (disulfide) bonding between chains, making each free section of chain shorter, resulting in the chains tightening more quickly for a given length of strain; all which makes vulcanized rubber harder and less extendable.

In a cold environment, i.e., when cooled below its glass transition temperature, the quasi-fluid chain segments in rubber "freeze" into fixed geometries, and rubber abruptly loses its elastic properties, though the process is reversible. (This is a property it shares with most elastomers.) Elasticity diminishes at very cold temperatures and rubber can become brittle; it will break into shards when struck or stretched. This critical property is the reason winter tires use softer rubber than normal tires.

The =Space Shuttle Challenger disaster happened on an unusually cold day in Florida. Rubber o-ring seals —placed between two solid-fuel containers of the orbiter— were assessed to have cooled to below their critical (glass transition) temperature; under such low termperatures, the rubber was no longer elastic and could not flex as designed. During initiation of lift-off —which creates a prodigious explosion of expelling hot gases— the cold and brittle o-rings failed to seal off sections between the two solid-fuel rocket boosters, and, thereby, the exploding ignition gases, which was their (designed) purpose to contain; a fatal result.

[edit] Properties Rubber exhibits unique physical and chemical properties. Rubber's stress-strain behavior exhibits the Mullins effect, the Payne effect and is often modeled as hyperelastic. Rubber strain crystallizes.[\]

Owing to the presence of a double bond in each {and every} repeat unit, natural rubber is sensitive to ozone cracking.[\]

[edit] XSolventsX Industrial process; vulcanization

Because rubber does not dissolve easily, it is usually finely divided by shredding prior to immersing in solvent. There are two main solvents for rubber: turpentine and petroleum naphtha. The former has been in use since 1763 when Francois Fresnau made the discovery. Giovanni Fabronni is credited with the first use of naphtha as a rubber solvent in 1779. Ammonia solution is used to prevent coagulation of raw latex while being being transported or held for processing.

0712t4

REF: john loadman> bouncing-balls.net: The human cost of the Congo rubber saga is as difficult to calculate as the financial but it was certainly high. There is general agreement that the population of the Congo in the 1880’s was around 25,000,000. In 1911 the official figure was put at 8,500,000, 7,700,000 in 1923 and 8 – 10,000,000 in the mid 1930’s. Making due allowance for inaccuracies in the 1880’s figure there seems to be no reason to doubt that 10 - 15,000,000 natives ‘vanished’ in the Congo during Leopold’s rubber-grabbing years. Not all this can be laid at the door of rubber or, indeed, at the door of Leopold himself, for during this period Africa was swept by a devastating plague of sleeping sickness. Secret flight was an option but this was against the Concession Company’s ‘law’ and it was not easy, as the death toll incurred by native porters during many explorations have shown. The birth rate of native Congolese fell substantially in the first decade of the 19th century and this is generally ascribed to the falling numbers of young indigenous males, murdered for failing to meet their target quotas of rubber. However, the concurrent rape of the female hostages should have compensated for this so the reasons must be more complex. One still has to ask how this should be factored into any calculations regarding lives ‘lost’ during this period.

053009 t

S1: Then came the 'death dynasties' for producing natural rubber --those private regimes for farming and exporting natural rubber at slave-labour costs of only human blood and lives. These death-barons produced natural rubber latex by enslaving and forcing to-the-death labour of native peoples in Africa, South America and Asia; all reaching to the premeditated extermination of ten to fifteen million(!) people in Africa, and less, perhaps, than one million in South America --by slaver-entrepreneurs intent upon dealing death for profits. Their initial planning and daily policy was to extort captured labour by terrorising hapless natives with premeditated and methodical killing, maiming, rape of women and children, torture, internment of entire villages into concentration camps, destuction of villages and peoples' food crops, starvation, etc., ad nauseam. The two most notorious --ie, the most documented after a time-- death-barons of rubber were Belgium's King Leopold II --he conceived the blood-plans for his African Congo plantations-- and his on-site captain and implementor, Sir Henry Stanley Morton, the famed African adventurer and notorious fabulist. (Stanley claimed he had not known of Leopold's initial blood-plans; regardless, he continued his employment for Leopold after he was informed --re the initial plans, not the blood, which he was quite familiar with.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.bouncing-balls.com/index2.htm

http://www.pslc.ws/macrog/exp/rubber/menu.htm/The Story of Rubber     ??

X 2.The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was caused by rubber O-rings that were below their glass transition temperature on an unusually cold Florida morning, and thus could not flex adequately to form proper seals between sections of the two solid-fuel rocket boosters.

x---which presents a prodigious expulsion of exploding hot gases---

ZZAn endothermic process is one that absorbs energy in the form of heat.

Rubber relaxation is endothermic, and the force exerted by a stretched piece of rubber increases with temperature.

During contraction (relaxation) rubber undergoes adiabatic cooling. This property can be verified by holding a stretched rubber band to one's lips and relaxing it.ZZ

xx---xx

In thermodynamics, the word endothermic "within-heating" describes a process or reaction that absorbs energy in the form of heat. Its etymology stems from the Greek prefix endo-, meaning “inside” and the Greek suffix –thermic, meaning “to heat”. The opposite of an endothermic process is an exothermic process, one that releases energy in the form of heat. The term “endothermic” was coined by Marcellin Berthelot.

The concept is frequently applied in physical sciences to e.g. chemical reactions, where thermal energy (heat) is converted to chemical bond energy.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In thermodynamics, an adiabatic process or an isocaloric process is a thermodynamic process in which no heat is transferred to or from the working fluid. The term "adiabatic" literally means impassable, coming from the Greek roots ἀ- ("not"), διὰ- ("through"), and βαῖνειν ("to pass"); this etymology corresponds here to an absence of heat transfer.

Adiabatic changes in temperature occur due to changes in pressure of a gas while not adding or subtracting any heat.

Adiabatic heating occurs when the pressure of a gas is increased from work done on it by its surroundings, ie a piston. Diesel engines rely on adiabatic heating during their compression stroke to elevate the temperature sufficiently to ignite the fuel. Similarly, jet engines rely upon adiabatic heating to create the correct compression of the air to enable fuel to be injected and ignition to then occur.

Adiabatic heating also occurs in the Earth's atmosphere when an air mass descends, for example, in a katabatic wind or Foehn wind flowing downhill.

Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure of a substance is decreased as it does work on its surroundings. Adiabatic cooling does not have to involve a fluid. One technique used to reach very low temperatures (thousandths and even millionths of a degree above absolute zero) is adiabatic demagnetisation, where the change in magnetic field on a magnetic material is used to provide adiabatic cooling. Adiabatic cooling also occurs in the Earth's atmosphere with orographic lifting and lee waves, and this can form pileus or lenticular clouds if the air is cooled below the dew point.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR_______________________________RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

FEVR
R'The Fremont and Elkhorn Valley Railroad is a 17-mile (27 km) heritage railroad headquartered in Dodge County, Nebraska. It is owned by the Nebraska Railroad Museum which offers excursion services with the equipment of the FEVR system.

The FEVR line extends from Fremont to nearby Hooper. It was originally built in 1869 as part of the larger system, the Fremont, Elkhorn and Missouri Valley Railroad (FE&MV). In 1903, the Chicago and North Western Railway (CNW) acquired the FE&MV; in 1984, CNW abandoned the Fremont-Hooper line, which was later acquired by the museum.

Inaugurated on Memorial Day, 1986, as an excursion line for the summer months, the trains were powered by 2-8-0 #1702, a 1942 steam locomotive built by Baldwin. A back-up locomotive, EMD SW1200 (Soo Line 2121), was used until 1996. Since 2008 the motive power is another EMD SW1200, built in 1962. The museum also owns and operates the Fremont Dinner Train.

Roster of equipment

 * EMD SW1200 #1219: a diesel-electic switcher locomotive built in 1962; acquired by FEVR in 1986. Received in C&NW colors, it was painted into FEVR colors ('painted FEVR') in 1988.
 * Passenger car 1101: built in 1924 by Pullman; originally a heavyweight sleeper for the CNW. It was acquired by FEVR in 1985 and painted FEVR in 1988.
 * Passenger car 1102: built in 1924 by Pullman; originally a heavyweight sleeper for the CNW. It was acquired by FEVR in 1985 & painted FEVR in 1988.
 * Concession car 1938: built in 1926 by Pullman; originally a heavyweight RPO for the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad and later used in maintenance-of-way service for Burlington Northern Railroad. It was acquired by FEVR in 1985 and painted FEVR in 2003.
 * Passenger car 649: built in 1946 by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (Milwaukee Road); originally used on the Olympian Hiawatha. It was acquired by a private owner in 1985 after the Milwaukee Road went defunct, and used by FEVR sporting the yellow scheme used after 1955 by the Milwaukee Road. A second private owner painted it back to the 'original' color scheme.  A third owner began restoring the car in 1993, moving it to Chamberlain, South Dakota where restoration work was continued.
 * Passenger car 542: built by the Milwaukee Road in 1947; acquired from that defunct road by the same private owner of 649. Both cars later were sold and moved to South Dakota for continued restoration.  The 542, originally painted for the Olympian Hiawatha, was painted yellow in 1955 and still sports the yellow as of 2008.

Route details
The tracks ridden by FEVR trains were laid in 1869-71 by the Fremont, Elkhorn and Missouri Valley Railroad (FE&MV); it is one of the oldest sections of existing railroad track in the state of Nebraska. In its general north-south route, the tracks cross the 1848 Mormon Trail on its way west to Salt Lake City, Utah. The FE&MV was acquired by the Chicago and North Western Railway in 1903 and became a gateway to Chadron in nothwest Nebraska, where the tracks then lead north to Deadwood and Rapid City, South Dakota, then on to Colony, Wyoming. From Chadron, the tracks leading west terminate in Lander, Wyoming. In 1984, the section of track FEVR uses was abandoned by the CNW which was acquired by FEVR in 1985. By 1986, excursion operations were inaugurated by Steam Locomotive #1702.

Between Fremont and the village of Nickerson, a 'track'-diamond intersection exists in the BNSF Railway's Sioux City subdivision. South of Linden Avenue, the FEVR interchanges with Union Pacific Railroad (UP), which owns the connection line from M Street to Linden Avenue. The connection line is currently out of service, with trees growing on the right-of-way, ties needing replacement, and other repairs necessary. FEVR has been interested in acquiring the track for a number of years.

Fatality at 23rd Street
In 1993, a train crewman was killed, the result of a large truck colliding with the FEVR train at a track crossing. The operator of the truck was found at fault in the incident.R' x Preview of edit summary: (copy-editing --major overhaul done here, aimed at improving article towards 'good encyclopedic reportin', meaning: better grammar & word flow, punct'n & spelling.. (pls see discussion)) x

Axial age
RGerman philosopher Karl Jaspers coined the term the axial age (Ger. Achsenzeit, "axistime") to delineate a unique period in human history from 800 BC to 200 BC, during which, according to Jaspers, similar but separate revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India and the Occident. The period is sometimes called the axis age.

R2Jaspers, in his Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte (The Origin and Goal of History), identified several axial age thinkers who—he adjudged—profoundly influenced the development of later philosophy and religion; and he identified cultural factors common to their (collective) native areas and regions of travel. R3Jaspers saw their ideas as striking parallels of progress in human thinking without any obvious direct connections; that is, he found no recorded proof of extensive intercommunication among Ancient Greece, the Middle East, India, and China. He pronounced the 'axis age' as unique—a paradigm, to which other eras of human thought might be compared.

Jaspers' approach to analysing the various cultures of the mid-first millennium BC has been adopted by other scholars and academics, and has become a focus for discussing the histories of religion, philosophy, and human thought.

XGerman philosopher Karl Jaspers coined the term the axial age (Ger. Achsenzeit, "axistime") to describe the period from 800 BC to 200 BC, during which, according to Jaspers, similar revolutionary thinking appeared in China, India and the Occident. The period is also sometimes referred to as the axis age.

X2Jaspers, in his Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte (The Origin and Goal of History), identified a number of key axial age thinkers as having had a profound influence on future philosophy and religion, and identified characteristics common to each area from which those thinkers emerged. X3Jaspers saw in these developments in religion and philosophy a striking parallel without any obvious direct transmission of ideas from one region to the other, having found no recorded proof of any extensive intercommunication between Ancient Greece, the Middle East, India, and China. Jaspers held out the 'axis age' as unique, and one to which the rest of the history of human thought might be compared. Jaspers' approach to the culture of the middle of the first millennium BC has been adopted by other scholars and academics, and has become a point of discussion in the history of religion.

Thinkers and movements
RJaspers argued that during the axial age "the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently... And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today". These foundations were laid by individual thinkers within their individual frames of changing social environments.

XJaspers argued that during the axial age "the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently... And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today". These foundations were laid by individual thinkers within a framework of a changing social environment.

X===Thinkers and movements===

R2{XJaspers'} The axial 'shifts' perceived by Jaspers included: 1) the rise of Platonism, which would later become a major influence on the Western world through both Christian and secular thought throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance; 2) Buddhism, founded by Siddhartha Gautama (or the Buddha) became one of the world's most influential philosophies; its spread was aided by Ashoka, who lived late in the axial age;

X2Jaspers' axial shifts included the rise of Platonism, which would later become a major influence on the Western world through both Christian and secular thought throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. Buddhism, another of the world's most influential philosophies, was founded by Siddhartha Gautama, or the Buddha, who lived during this period; and its spread was aided by Ashoka, who lived late in the period;

R3 3) Confucianism, which arose during this era in China, where it remains today a profound influence on social and religious life;

R# 4) Zoroastrianism, is crucial to the development of monotheism; it was founded, according to Jaspers, during the axial age by Zarathustra (or Zarathushtra; Greek, Zoroaster). Jaspers, no historian, uses the Seleucid-era estimate for the founding of Zoroastrianism; specifically, Zoroastrian priests of that era derived the "Traditional Date" to establish the "Age of Zoroaster"—ergo, their 'founding' date for Zoroasterism—which proved within the same period as the unifying of Persia by Cyrus, ____. (It is here, the dating of Zoroaster, that Jaspers' conceit of the 'axial age'—that is, that all his axial thinkers, and their associated movements, are dated in the delineated period 800 to 200 BC—is particularly challenged). The dating of Zoroaster's life is broadly debated by scholars, with some, such as Mary Boyce, arguing that Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism are significantly older than the Persian empire.

R#Others, such as William W. Malandra and R.C. Zaehner suggest that Zoroaster may indeed have been an early contemporary of Cyrus, living around 600 BC.

X3In China, Confucianism arose during this era, where it remains a profound influence on social and religious life. X#Zoroastrianism, another of Jaspers' examples, is crucial to the development of monotheism X# -- although Jaspers uses the Seleucid-era estimate for the founding of Zoroastrianism, which is actually the date of Cyrus' unification of Persia. The exact date of Zarathustra's life is debated by scholars with some, such as Mary Boyce, arguing that Zoroastrianism itself is significantly older. X# Others, such as William W. Malandra and R.C. Zaehner suggest that he may indeed have been an early contemporary of Cyrus living around 600 BC.

R4Jaspers included as axial figures: Lao Tzu, Homer, Socrates, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Thucydides, Archimedes, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and the authors of the Upanishads. He held Socrates, Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama in especially high regard, describing them as exemplary human beings—or each as a "paradigmatic personality".

X4Jaspers also included the authors of the Upanishads, Lao Tzu, Homer, Socrates, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Thucydides, Archimedes, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah as axial figures. Jaspers held Socrates, Confucius and Siddhartha Gautama in especially high regard, describing them as exemplary human beings, or as a "paradigmatic personality".

r

r

r

1rererererererererere: Zoroaster Zoroaster (Latinized from Greek variants) or Zarathushtra (from Avestan Zaraθuštra), also referred to as Zartosht (Persian: زرتشت), was an ancient Iranian prophet, philosopher and religious poet. Scholars believe that he lived sometime between 1750 and 1500 BC or between 1400 and 1200 BC, >>>>although Iranian tradition places him at about 570 BC.<<<<

The traditional Parsi people of India place the Prophet as older than 6000 BC [1]. The hymns attributed to him, the Gathas, are at the liturgical core of Zoroastrianism.

2rererererererererere: Zoroaster

The date of Zoroaster, i.e., the date of composition of the Old Avestan gathas, is unknown. Dates proposed by reputable scholars diverge widely, between the 18th and 10th centuries BCE.[8]

Until the late 1600s, Zoroaster was generally dated to about the 6th century BCE, which coincided with both the “Traditional date” (see details below) and historiographic accounts (Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii.6.32, 4th century CE). However, already at the time (late 19th century), the issue was far from settled, with James Darmesteter pleading for a later date (c. 100 BCE). Some ancient authors also give a mythological "date" corresponding to about 6000 BCE.[e]

The “Traditional date” originates in the period immediately following Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BCE. The Seleucid kings who gained power following Alexander’s death instituted an “Age of Alexander” as the new calendrical epoch. This did not appeal to the Zoroastrian priesthood who then attempted to establish an “Age of Zoroaster.” To do so, they needed to establish when Zoroaster had lived, which they accomplished by counting back the length of successive generations[9] until they concluded that Zoroaster must have lived “258 years before Alexander.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CURRENT> This is a partial list of works of fiction that are written within, or derived from, the framework of another work of fiction by another author. This list does not include franchised book series', which are typically works licensed by the publisher of the original work to use its settings and characters. This list thus excludes such works as Star Trek and Star Wars novels. Works on this list usually have the same setting and time period, and many of the same characters, but are told from a different perspective. endCURRENT.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

110310>R6-NEW-TITLE>>-"List of works of fiction inspired/derived/sourced from other works"

XXXR7This is a partial list of ||text works of fiction derived/sourced from works created by other authors, or by artists in other media, including poetry, opera, theater, movies, television, etc; or fictionalized stories, created by succeeding authors, that are sourced on fictional characters taken from anonymous epics or legends, or on historical persons. XXXdescribed in various sources not attributed to any one author. XXX This is a partial list of works of fiction that are written within, or derived from, the framework of another work of fiction by another author.

R13This is a partial list of works of fiction each inspired by another work, whether of fiction, legend, or history. A listed work meets the following criteria:

(1) a ||text work of fiction that is inspired by---including derived from, sourced to, or written making use of---another work created by another author (called the 'sourced' author) or created by a 'sourced' artist in another media---including poetry, opera, theater, movies, television, etc; or from another work that depicts legendary character(s) or historical person(s).

(2) The derived work may feature any of the same setting, parallel text, time period, or characters from the work it sources (called the 'sourced' work); or it may introduce new characters, and it may be told from a different perspective than the sourced work.

At minumum, a statement by the author (of the listed work) of an 'inspired' connection to the sourced work is sufficient criteria for listing. Or a reliable critic or reviewer propounding of the connection is sufficient. These and other information may be cited as source reference establishing the connection of the derivative work to the named source. Claims of copywrite infringent or court challenges should be reported by citation and reference.

(3) Any work of fiction meeting the above criteria, including children's, young adult or juvenile literature may be listed here. The popularized genre(s) of the listed work may be entered in the appropriate column; 'parallel' or 'historical' fiction, as genres, may apply to many works listed here, but neither genre is a necessary criteria for listing here.

(4) If the author of a derivative work is not linked as a Wikipedia main article the title must be cited in the reference section to a independent publisher and date of publication. If challenged, additional sourcing may be required to support notability or to document the connection of the derivative work to the sourced work.

(5) Derivative works listed here do not include comic books, graphic novels, abridged or reworked editions, self-published works or fan fiction; nor do they include a franchised book series, or similar works licensed for use of settings or characters, such as the Star Trek and Star Wars novels, or the James Bond series, etc.    ---endR13

?/The derivative work may introduce new characters, and may be told from a different perspective than the sourced work. The derivative work may feature any, all, or none of parallel text, the same setting, time period, or characters from the work it sources; but, if none, there must be provided information and source establishing the derivative connection to the named source. ---endR11

re-110210-graphic novels-begin Writer Neil Gaiman, responding to a claim that he does not write comic books but graphic novels, said the commenter "meant it as a compliment, I suppose. But all of a sudden I felt like someone who'd been informed that she wasn't actually a hooker; that in fact she was a lady of the evening."[26] Responding to Wolk's comment, Bone creator Jeff Smith said, "I kind of like that answer. Because 'graphic novel'... I don't like that name. It's trying too hard. It is a comic book. >> But there is a difference. And the difference is, a graphic novel >>is a novel in the sense that there is |a beginning, |a middle and |an end."[27] re-110210-graphic novels-end

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MaryCrawford(MansfieldPark)
>>ftr052010

Mary Crawford is an antagonist in Jane Austen's 1814 novel, Mansfield Park

rc==First Appearance==

Mary Crawford is introduced in the fourth chapter of the novel. She comes from London in company with her brother, Henry Crawford, and arrives in the country with all urbane airs and tastes for manners and courtship. She, with her brother, stays with her half-sister, Mrs. Grant, in the parsonage where Mrs. Grant's husband was recently appointed to the living as clergyman to Mansfield Park.

rc==Character==

Mary Crawford is charming upon her meetings with the wealthy Bertrams. Initially, she is enamored of Mr. Tom Bertram, who as the eldest son of a consequential baronet, is considered a suitable match for such a young lady as she—of a fortune of £20,000. But the narrator implies she is a sycophant; she appears pleasant and agreeable to the Bertrams, but not at all congenial to their ward, Fanny Price, a 'poor-relation' whom Mary views as socially inferior. Mary is also depicted as mildly arrogant towards Fanny, saying to her, after keeping her (Fanny's) riding mount long overdue: "Selfishness must always be forgiven, for there is no hope for a cure,"..

rc==Mary and Edmund==

Although partial to Tom Bertram, Mary Crawford decides to transfer her interests to his younger brother, Edmund. (Tom went away to visit friends without giving notice of any intentions towards her.) Despite her slight repugnance to socializing with Edmund—she finds him monotonous—she eventually began to favor him. When she learns that Edmund is to take orders, she strongly expresses her condemnation, believing that profession (of clergyman) to be odious. She encourages him to become a soldier or a lawyer instead, to no avail. (Mary's attentions to Edmund displease Fanny Price, who has secretly fallen in love with him herself). After promising him the first (two) dances at at ball soon be given at Mansfield Park, Mary tells Edmund it will be the "last time" she will dance with him, because: the next time they meet he will be ordained, and .."she never has danced with a clergyman... and she never will". Her declaration, whether serious or not, greatly upsets Edmund, who has become captivated by Mary's charms.

rc==Mary with Fanny==

Mary's brother Henry Crawford informs her of his intent to amuse himself by, in essence, 'trifling with' Fanny Price; that is, he would engage her affections, romance her, and cause her to fall in love with him. Then, he would coldly leave her in the same manner he has previously manipulated other women, including Maria Bertram, (Edmund's brother), of Mansfield Park. After a modicum of objecting, Mary agrees to cooperate with Henry's odious charade. Mary now becomes generous with Fanny and befriends her, attempting to subtly persuade her to favor Henry. She incessantly compliments Fanny, presses upon her the gift of a golden necklace, and invites her to dine with the Grants—so as to be in company with Henry. But none of Mary's efforts sway Fanny from her disgust with Henry Crawford; meanwhile, Henry seems to have become entrapped emotionally by his own devious hunt, and decides he must marry Fanny. When Henry utters his sentiments for her, Fanny realizes she has not understood the true reason for Mary's kindnesses toward her; and she immediately declines Henry Crawford's proposal.

rc==Mary Crawford's Character Revealed==

Ultimately, Henry Crawford departs Mansfield Park, but not before giving public notice of his intentions to return and to 'persevere' in courtship of Fanny Price until she agrees to accept him. But, while in London he again encounters Maria Bertram, now Mrs. Rushworth, who has taken a residence in town with her recently wedded husband. Each to their characters, they flaunt society's strictures and resume their old flirtation, and finally they elope together. When Maria's family is apprised of their scandalous affair, they all are deeply distressed. Sir Thomas goes to London to search for Maria; Edmund goes there to interview Mary, who rationalizes her brother's mistakes with Maria; indeed, Mary harshly criticizes Fanny Price—for declining Henry's proposal, and thereby causing what follows. She explicitly declares that had Fanny accepted Henry's marriage proposal, he would have been too happy and too occupied with the pleasant prospect of his nuptials to engage in such mischief as he pursued! Edmund is infuriated and, speechless, leaves Mary's apartment. (He later relates all to Fanny, who consoles him. Finally, Edmund realizes that indeed Fanny is his best-possible match; he proposes to her and she accepts.)

rc==Notable Portrayals==


 * Jackie Smith-Wood in the 1983 television serial, Mansfield Park
 * Embeth Davidtz in the 1999 film, Mansfield Park directed by Patricia Rozema
 * Hayley Atwell in the 2007 BBC version Mansfield Park

rc==References==

>>ftr052010x:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

o1==Title as variation on a theme(Persuasion)==oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Readers of "Persuasion" might infer Jane Austen intended 'persuasion' as the working theme of the story. Certainly that theme is repeated several times, with vignettes within the story as variations on that theme. On the other hand, there is evidence that Austen did not have in mind such an explicit theme and variations. It even appears she did not envision the title of the story as "Persuasion"; there is speculation that the title of the novel was chosen by her brother Henry or her sister Cassandra. Henry had long championed his sister's writing, especially in business and publishing circles where he had more access than Cassandra. After Jane's death it was he who arranged for publishing the novel, perhaps naming it in the process. Another speculation is that the two siblings collaborated in choosing the title. Some critics believe Austen intended to name the novel "The Elliots" but that she died without titling it. o1x - R1:rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Title as variation on a theme
*<<<<<--NB:>>this is a tag--placed since 022010/// Readers of "Persuasion" might well infer Jane Austen intended 'persuasion' as the working theme of the story, and that she applied the novel's title to reflect this conceit. Certainly that theme is repeated several times, with vignettes within the story as variations on that theme. But there is no known source for Austen pronouncing her own title for this work. (Some critics believe Austen intended to name the novel "The Elliots", but that, in fact, she died without titling it.)

On the other hand, the literary scholar Gillian Beer documents that Jane Austen had profound concerns about the levels and applications of 'persuasion' employed among individuals of her society, especially as it influenced the choices and moral suasion made upon the young women of her day. Beer reports that, for Austen and her readers, persuasion was indeed "fraught with moral dangers"; she notes particularly that Austen personally was appalled by the misdirection of her own intentions in advising a beloved niece (Fanny Knight) on the very question of accepting a particular suitor entailing with a long engagement. Beer writes: "Jane Austen's anxieties about persuasion and responsibility are here passionately expressed. She refuses to become part of the machinery with which Fanny is manoeuvering herself into forming the engagement. To be the stand-in motive for another's actions frightens her. Yet Jane Austen cannot avoid the part of persuader, even as dissuader."

Thus, Beer explains, Austen was keenly aware that, still, the human quality of persuasion—to persuade or to be persuaded, rightly or wrongly—is fundamental to the process of human communication; and that, in her novel "...Jane Austen gradually draws out the implications of discriminating 'just' and 'unjust' persuasion". Indeed, the narrative plays through a number of variations of people swaying, or attempting to sway, other people—or themselves. Finally, Beer describes Austen's work as: "...the novel's entire brooding on the power pressures, the seductions, and also the new pathways opened by persuasion". R1x

EDITSUM: Replaced part of this section with a report of a very reliable source (= scholar.) (The question of JA naming the book is still 'out there')

that the the heroine's final successes--including self-persuasion re her own decisions--

]] [[

her society's intense social pressure regarding 'persuasion'

In English literature the term is generally associated with the 17th century metaphysical poets, an extension of contemporary usage. In the metaphysical conceit, metaphors have a much more purely conceptual, and thus tenuous, relationship between the things being compared. Helen Gardner[2] observed that "a conceit is a comparison whose ingenuity is more striking than its justness" and that "a comparison becomes a conceit when we are made to Herbert's "Praise (3)," in which the generosity of God is compared to a bottle which ("As we have boxes for the poor") will take in an infinite amount of the speaker's tears. XxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX

Jazz piano
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Jazz piano is a collective term for the techniques pianists use when playing jazz. By extension the word can refer to the same techniques on any keyboard instrument. The piano has been an integral part of the jazz idiom since its inception, in both solo and ensemble settings. Its role is one of the most multifaceted, largely due to the instrument's combined melodic and harmonic nature. For this reason it is also an important tool in the understanding of jazz theory and arranging for jazz musicians and composers. Along with the guitar, vibraphone, and other keyboard instruments, the piano is one of the few instruments in a jazz combo which can play chords, rather than only single notes (as with the saxophone or trumpet).

1==Technique== 1.1===Learning jazz piano=== Mastering the various chord voicings—simple to advanced—are the first building blocks of learning jazz piano. Jazz piano technique uses all the chords found in Western art music, such as major, minor, augmented, diminished, seventh, diminished seventh, sixth, minor seventh, major seventh, sus 4, and so on. A second key skill is learning to play with a swing rhythm. The next step is improvisation: 'making it up' on the spot. This ability is perfected after long (and quality) experience, including much practice, which internalizes the physical skills of playing; and it requires a great natural 'ear' for extemporaneous music-making.

Jazz piano (the techinique) and the instrument itself offer soloists an exhaustive number of choices. One may play the bass register in an ostinato pattern, as those found in boogie-woogie, or as a melodic counterline that emulates the walking of an upright bass. In stride piano the left hand rapidly plays alternate positions between notes in the bass register and chords in the tenor register, as is often done in the syncopated variants. The right hand may play melodic lines, but might also play harmonic content, chordally or in octaves. And, it may be played in lockstep with the left hand, using a double melody block chord called "locked-hand" voicing, or Shearing voicing—which technique was popularized, though not invented, by the pianist and set leader George Shearing.

1.2===Ensemble role=== The role of the piano in the context of ensemble accompaniment has gradually changed from a time-keeping role consisting of repetitive left-hand figures to a more flexible one where the pianist is free to choose to interact with the soloist using both short and sustained chordal and melodic fragments. This form of accompaniment is known as comping.

The piano has always been a leading part in jazz. In the very beginning, black jazz musicians played ragtime on the piano. As the genre of jazz progressed, the piano was featured in what is known as the rhythm section of the jazz band. The rhythm section often includes a piano, guitar, bass, drums, and other instruments (such as the vibraphone). Popular jazz pianists such as Duke Ellington, who became famous during the Harlem Renaissance at the Cotton Club, were responsible for comping. Comping is the process by which a pianist plays an accompanying part made up primarily of chords so that other instrumentalists can solo. Jazz piano moved away from playing a leading melody to providing a foundation for a song. However, jazz pianists were also given the chance to solo. In the 1940s and 1950s, a number of great piano players emerged. Pianists like Thelonious Monk and Bud Powell helped create the music of bebop. Wynton Kelly, Red Garland, and Herbie Hancock were three exceptional pianists who played with Miles Davis. Tommy Flanagan was also featured by John Coltrane on his hit album Giant Steps. oooooooooooooooooo.

rrr===Ensemble role===060610;07,08

Jazz piano has played a leading role in developing the sound of jazz. Early on, black jazz musicians created ragtime on the piano. As the genre progressed the piano usually was featured in the rhythm section of a band, which was typically configured as one or more of piano, guitar, bass, or drums, or other such as the vibraphone.

Over time, playing piano-accompaniment in ensemble sets, and then bands, changed from primarily time-keeping (consisting of repetitive left-hand figures) to a more flexible role; ultimately, the skilled pianist was free both to lead and to answer the instrumental soloist, using both short and sustained, chordal and melodic, fragments—a technique known as 'comping'. Good comping musicians were capable of many and different chord voicings, so to match the various moods the different soloists were aiming for. In the early days, not all leading pianists were concerned to provide comping. Others—notably Duke Ellington, who became famous during the Harlem Renaissance at the Cotton Club—achieved much favored standing among members of his bands as well as other musicians because he 'comped' enthusiastically in support of the soloist and did much to develop the technique.

Jazz piano moved away from playing lead melody to providing foundation for song sets; and soon, skilled jazz pianists were performing as soloists. In the 1940s and -50s, a number of great piano players emerged. Pianists like Thelonious Monk and Bud Powell helped create and establish the sound of bebop. Wynton Kelly, Red Garland, and Herbie Hancock were three exceptional pianists who played with Miles Davis. Tommy Flanagan was featured by John Coltrane on his hit album Giant Steps. rrr2-x

intro-section==060710;08

Jazz piano is a collective term for the techniques pianists use when playing jazz. The piano has been an integral part of the jazz idiom since its inception, in both solo and ensemble settings. Its role is multifaceted due largely to the instrument's combined melodic and harmonic capabilities. For this reason it is an important tool of jazz musicians and composers for teaching and learning jazz theory and set arrangement. (By extension the phrase 'jazz piano' can refer to similar techniques on any keyboard instrument.)

Along with the guitar, vibraphone, and other keyboard instruments, the piano is one of the instruments in a jazz combo that can play both single notes and chords, rather than only single notes (as does the saxophone or trumpet).

jazzpianoxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

EthelWaters
oo==Career==oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo060810.

060812/ooo1-Orig

After her start in Baltimore, she toured on the black vaudeville circuit. As she described it later, "I used to work from nine until unconscious." Despite her early success, Waters fell on hard times and joined a carnival which traveled in freight cars to Chicago, Illinois. Waters enjoyed her time with the carnival, and recalled, "The roustabouts and the concessionaires were the kind of people I'd grown up with, rough, tough, full of larceny towards strangers, but sentimental, and loyal to their friends and co-workers." She did not last long with them, though, and soon headed south to Atlanta, Georgia. There, she worked in the same club with Bessie Smith. Smith demanded that she not compete in singing the blues opposite her, and Waters conceded to the older woman and instead sang ballads and popular songs and danced. Though perhaps best known for her blues singing today, Waters was to go on to star in musicals, plays and TV and return to the blues only periodically.

She fell in love with a drug addict in this early period, but their stormy relationship ended with World War I. Ethel Waters moved to Harlem and became part of the Harlem Renaissance around 1919. x-ooo1

>>>Rvsd\/

After her start in Baltimore Waters toured on the black vaudeville circuit. As she described it later, "I used to work from nine until unconscious." Despite her early success, she fell on hard times and joined a carnival, traveling in freight cars along the carnival circuit, eventually reaching Chicago. Waters enjoyed her time with the carnival, and recalled, "The roustabouts and the concessionaires were the kind of people I'd grown up with, rough, tough, full of larceny towards strangers, but sentimental, and loyal to their friends and co-workers." She did not last long with them, though, and soon headed south to Atlanta. There, she worked in the same club with Bessie Smith, who demanded that Waters not compete in singing blues opposite her. Waters conceded to the veteran blues headliner and instead sang ballads and popular songs, and danced. Perhaps today best known for her blues voice, Waters then was to sing, dance, play and star in musicals, plays and movies, and later in TV; but, she returned to singing blues whenever the opportunity presented.

>>>Rvsd\/

Waters loved a drug addict during this early period, but she broke with the destructive relationship sometime before the war years. In 1919 she moved to Harlem and there became a celebrity performer in the Harlem Renaissance during the 1920s. x-rrr060810

ooo2>>Orig-060810

Waters obtained her first job at Edmond's Cellar, a club that had a black patronage. She specialized in popular ballads, and became an actress in a blackface comedy called Hello 1919. Her biographer, Rosetta Reitz, points out that by the time Waters returned to Harlem in 1921, women blues singers were among the most powerful entertainers in the country. In 1921 Waters became the fifth black woman to make a record, on the tiny Cardinal Records label. She later joined Black Swan Records, where Fletcher Henderson was her accompanist. Waters later commented that Henderson tended to perform in a more classical style than she would prefer, often lacking "the damn-it-to-hell bass". According to Waters, she influenced Henderson to practice in a "real jazz" style.

She recorded with Black Swan from 1921 through 1923, when Black Swan merged with Paramount; she stayed with Paramount through 1924. She first recorded for Columbia Records in 1925; this recording was given a Grammy Hall of Fame Award in 1998. Soon after, Waters started working with Pearl Wright, and together they toured in the South. In 1924 Waters played at the Plantation Club on Broadway. She also toured with the Black Swan Dance Masters. With Earl Dancer, she joined what was called the "white time" Keith Circuit. They received rave reviews in Chicago, and earned the unheard-of salary of US$1,250 in 1928. In 1929, Harry Akst helped Wright and Waters compose a version of "Am I Blue?", her signature tune.

Although she was considered a blues singer during the pre-1925 period, Waters belonged to the Vaudeville-style style similar to Mamie Smith, Viola McCoy, and Lucille Hegamin. x-ooo

0003>>Orig073010

Waters obtained her first job at Edmond's Cellar, a club that had a black patronage. She specialized in popular ballads, and became an actress in a blackface comedy called Hello 1919.

1RVSD}}} Her biographer, }}RVSD }The jazz historian{

Rosetta Reitz, points out that by the time Waters returned to Harlem in 1921, women blues singers were among the most powerful entertainers in the country. In 1921 Waters became the fifth black woman to make a record, on the tiny Cardinal Records label. She later joined Black Swan Records, where Fletcher Henderson was her accompanist. Waters later commented that Henderson tended to perform in a more classical style than she would prefer, often lacking "the damn-it-to-hell bass". According to Waters, she influenced Henderson to practice in a "real jazz" style.

She remained with Columbia through 1931. She then signed with

2RVSD}}}Brunsick}}rvsd }Brunswick{

in 1932 and remained until 1933 when she went back to Columbia. She signed with Decca in late 1934 for only two sessions, as well as a single session in early 1938. She recorded for the specialty label "Liberty Music Shops" in 1935 and again in 1940. Between 1938 and 1939, she recorded for Bluebird.

In 1933, Waters made a satirical all-black film entitled Rufus Jones for President. She went on to star at the Cotton Club, where, according to her autobiography, she "sang 'Stormy Weather' from the depths of the private hell in which I was being crushed and suffocated." She took a role in the Broadway musical revue As Thousands Cheer in 1933, where she was the first black woman in an otherwise white show. She had three gigs at this point; in addition to the show, she starred in a national radio program and continued to work in nightclubs. She was the highest paid performer on Broadway, but she was starting to age. MGM hired Lena Horne as the ingenue in the all-Black musical Cabin in the Sky, and Waters starred as Petunia in 1942, reprising her stage role of 1940. The film, directed by Vincente Minnelli, was a success, but Waters, offended by the adulation accorded Horne and feeling her age, went into something of a decline.

>>2rvsd She began to work with Fletcher Henderson again in the late 1940s. She was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Academy Award in 1949 for the film Pinky. In 1950, she won the New York Drama Critics Award for her performance opposite Julie Harris in the play The Member of the Wedding. Waters and Harris repeated their roles in the 1952 film version of Member of the Wedding'' In 1950, Waters starred in the television series Beulah but quit after complaining that the scripts' portrayal of African-Americans was "degrading."

Despite these successes, her brilliant career was fading. She lost tens of thousands in jewelry and cash in a robbery, and the IRS hounded her. Her health suffered, and she worked only sporadically in following years. In 1950-51 she wrote the autobiography His Eye is on the Sparrow, with Charles Samuels. (It later was adapted for a stage production in which she was portrayed by Ernestine Jackson.) In it, she talks candidly about her life. She also explains why her age has often been misstated, saying that her mother had to sign a paper saying she was four years older than she was. She states she was born in 1900. In her second autobiography, To Me, It's Wonderful, Waters states that she was born in 1897.[3]

3RVSD}}}Her biographer, }}RVSD} The jazz historian{

Rosetta Reitz, called Waters "a natural". Her "songs are enriching, nourishing. You will want to play them over and over again, idling in their warmth and swing. Though many of them are more than 50 years old, the music and the feeling are still there."

Île-de-France (province)
R0731

The province of Île-de-France or Isle de France (as it was once written, as sometimes in English, especially in old publications) is an ancient province of France, and the one at the centre of power during most of French history. The ancient province centred on Paris, the seat of the Crown of France, but it doesn't map the very same territory as the present-day région Île-de-France: some parts of the ancient province now are incorporated in the present-day region of Picardy, whereas other parts of the present-day région Île-de-France are taken from the ancient province of Champagne.RRR0801

The name Isle de France (Île-de-France) first appeared in 1387 when the term "France" began to designate territories of the Crown, replacing the pays de France ("pays" means "region/county", as well as "country"). Literally "Island of France", the name was derived from the area's situation with the rivers Seine, Marne, Oise and Beuvronne, which surround it like an island. The name may also inherit from the Frankish Lidle Franke / Lilde Franke, or, "little France". That is, because the "French"/Frankish kings were bilingual until the 12th or 13th century, the Frankish expression may have evolved when Francia ("Franko/n", "Franke", or "Franchonolant" in Frankish) no longer meant the entire Frankish Empire but the smaller West Francia, and later the—even smaller—"Pays de France". The expression "Liddle Franke" / "Lilde Franke" may have persisted until the 13th century when locals quit pronouncing the "s" in "isle"; then "Lilde France" would be difficult to distinguish from Île-de-France [il də fʁɑ̃s].RRR073110

EDITSUM: c-e: clarifd readibility> which 'parts' moved where---is it correct now? & how 'Liddle' became 'Île'; &less passive voice, excess verbiage, word repetition, and mix of tenses;

P&P Lede
C>Pride and Prejudice is a novel by Jane Austen. It was begun in 1796, her second novel, but her first serious attempt at publication.CC

..her "first serious attempt at publication." ?? <Pride and Prejudice is a novel by Jane Austen. It was begun in 1796, her second novel, but her first serious attempt at publication.CC

R>Pride and Prejudice is a novel by Jane Austen. It was begun in 1796; it was her second attempt at a novel and one of three—Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey—requiring 12 years or more to bring to publication.RR

C>She finished the original manuscript by 1797 in Steventon, Hampshire, where she lived with her parents and siblings in the town rectory. Austen originally called the story First Impressions, but it was never published under that title; instead, she made extensive revisions to the manuscript, then retitled and eventually published it as Pride and Prejudice. In renaming the novel, Austen may have had in mind the final chapter of Fanny Burney's Cecilia, itself called "Pride and Prejudice", where the phrase appears three times in block capitals. (She may also have been concerned that the original title might be confused with other works.)CC

C>The story follows the main character Elizabeth Bennet as she deals with issues of manners, upbringing, morality, education and marriage in the landed gentry society of early 19th century England.CC

1xx0904

20904 only the "landed gentry" link-page is of  'high-value'  to the subject-page article—ie, P&P. Re the other (seven) link-words, they each refer to English "landed gentry" of the P&P period—but, alas, the link-page narratives are not of much (or any) value in the P&P-specific context. Therefore, they are de-linked.

XXHere, the context (in P&P) of each of the other (seven) link-words directly refer to English "landed gentry" of the P&P period—but, alas, the link-page narratives are not of much (or any) value in the P&P-specific context. Therefore, they are de-linked.}}

C>Elizabeth is the second eldest of five daughters of a country gentleman landed in the fictional town of Meryton in Hertfordshire, not far from London.CC

C>Though the story's setting is uniquely turn of the 19th century, it retains a fascination for modern readers, continuing near the top of lists of 'most loved books' such as The Big Read. It still receives considerable attention from literary critics. This modern interest has resulted in a number of dramatic adaptations and an abundance of novels and stories imitating Austen's memorable characters or themes.CC

C>To date, the book has sold some 20 million copies worldwide.[4]CC

C>*Mrs Bennet is the wife of her social superior Mr Bennet, and mother of Elizabeth and her sisters. XFanny is frivolous, excitable, and narrow-minded. She is susceptible to attacks of tremors and palpitations; her public manners and social climbing are embarrassing to Jane and Elizabeth. Her favourite daughter is the youngest, Lydia.CC

R>*Mrs Bennet is the wife of her social superior Mr Bennet, and mother of Elizabeth and her sisters. R>'She' is frivolous, excitable, and narrow-minded ', and is'RR susceptible to attacks of tremors and palpitations. Her public manners and social climbing are embarrassing to Jane and Elizabeth. Her favourite daughter is the youngest, Lydia.RR

C>*Mr Gardiner is Mrs Bennet's brother, and a businessman. He is quite sensible and gentleman-like. He tries to help Lydia when she elopes with Wickham. His wife has close relationships with Elizabeth and Jane. Jane stays with the Gardiners in London for a while, and Elizabeth travels with them to Derbyshire, where she again meets Darcy.CC

R>*Aunt and Uncle Gardiner: he is Mrs Bennet's brother, and a sucessful businessman in London—quite sensible and gentleman-like. His wife is close with—a mentor to—both Elizabeth and Jane, and she proves vital in assisting Elizabeth and in interpreting Darcy. Jane stays with the Gardiners in London for a while, and Elizabeth travels with them to Derbyshire, where she again meets Darcy. They both support the Bennets by trying to help Lydia when she elopes with Wickham. RR

P&P Plot summary
Plot summary--CURRENT

The novel revolves around the Bennet family. The five marriageable daughters and mother will be without a home and income once Mr. Bennet dies, for the terms on which Mr. Bennet inherited Longbourn ("fee tail male," since abolished by the Law of Property Act 1925) prohibit women from inheriting it, with the effect that instead one of Mr. Bennet's collateral relatives will inherit the estate. The mother worries about this predicament, and wishes to find husbands for her daughters quickly. The father doesn't seem to be worried at all. Elizabeth, the heroine, has decided to marry only for love, even though she has no real ideas about how she will survive financially. She jokingly notes that her sister Jane, being kind and beautiful, may be responsible for finding a wealthy husband, thus providing for the female members of the family. As the novel opens, Mr Bingley, a wealthy young gentleman, rents a country estate near the Bennets called Netherfield. He arrives in town accompanied by his fashionable sisters and his good friend, Mr Darcy. While Bingley is well received in the community, Darcy begins his acquaintance with smug condescension and proud distaste for all the 'country' people. Bingley and Elizabeth Bennet's older sister Jane begin to grow close. Elizabeth's best friend Charlotte advises that Jane should show her affection to Bingley more openly, as he may not know that she is indeed interested in him. Elizabeth disregards her friend's opinion, saying that Jane is by nature shy and modest, and that if Bingley can't see how she feels, he is a fool. With that, she never even tells Jane what Charlotte advised. After Darcy's haughty rejection of her at a local dance she decides to match his coldness and pride with prejudiced dislike, expressed in continuing witty and sometimes sarcastic remarks.

Soon, Elizabeth begins a friendship with Mr Wickham, a militia officer, who tells her that he has been seriously mistreated by Darcy, with whom he has a prior acquaintance. Elizabeth immediately seizes upon this information as another reason to dislike Darcy. Ironically, but unbeknownst to her, Darcy finds himself drawn to Elizabeth.

P&P Plot summary==REVISED--\/

The main plot of the novel is driven by a particular situation of the Bennet family: if Mr. Bennet dies soon, his wife and five daughters will be without home or income, as the laws of the day by which he inherited Longbourn prohibit the women from inheriting it. Instead the estate is entailed to one of Mr. Bennet's collateral relatives—male only in this case—by the legal terms of fee tail. Mrs Bennet worries about this predicament, and wishes to find husbands for her daughters quickly. The father doesn't seem to be worried at all.

The narrative opens with Mr Bingley, a wealthy young gentleman and a very eligible bachelor, renting a country estate near the Bennets called Netherfield. He arrives accompanied by his fashionable sisters and his good friend, Mr Darcy. Attending the local assembly (dance) Bingley is well received in the community, while Darcy begins his acquaintance with smug condescension and 'proud' distaste for all the country locals. After Darcy's haughty rejection of her at the dance, Elizabeth resolves to match his coldness and pride, his prejudice against country people, with her own prideful anger—in biting wit and sometimes sarcastic remarks—directed towards him. (Elizabeth's disposition leads her into prejudices regarding Darcy and others, such that she is unable to 'sketch' their characters accurately.)

Soon, Bingley and Jane begin to grow close. Elizabeth's best friend Charlotte advises that Jane should show her affection to Bingley more openly, as he may not realize that she is indeed interested in him. Elizabeth flippantly dismisses the opinion—replying that Jane is shy and modest, and that if Bingley can't see how she feels, he is a simpleton—and she doesn't tell Jane of Charlotte's warning.

Later Elizabeth begins a friendship with Mr Wickham, a militia officer who is of long personal acquaintance with Darcy—they grew up together. Wickham tells her he has been seriously mistreated by the proud man; Elizabeth seizes on this news as further reason to dislike Darcy. Ironically, Darcy begins to find himself drawn to Elizabeth, unbeknownst to her.

II

Mr Collins, the male relative who is to inherit Longbourn, makes an appearance and stays with the Bennets. Recently ordained a clergyman, he is employed as parish rector by the wealthy and patronizing Lady Catherine de Bourgh of Kent. Mr Bennet and Elizabeth are amused by his self-important and pedantic behaviour. Though his stated reason for visiting is to reconcile with the Bennets, Collins soon confides to Mrs Bennet that he wishes to find a wife from among the Bennet sisters. He first offers to pursue Jane; however, Mrs Bennet mentions that her eldest daughter is soon likely to be engaged, and redirects his attentions to Elizabeth.

At a ball given by Bingley at Netherfield, Elizabeth intends to deepen her acquaintance with Mr Wickham, who, however, fails to appear. She is asked to dance by Mr Darcy; here she raises Wickham's fate with him, causing their harmonious dance to fall into a 'testy' discussion. The ball proceeds as spectacle: the arriviste Sir William shocks Darcy, alluding to Jane and Bingley and 'a certain desirable event'; Mr. Collins behaves fatuously; now Mrs Bennet talks loudly and indiscreetly of her expectation of marriage between Jane and Bingley, and, in general, cousin Collins and the Bennet family—save Jane and Elizabeth—combine in a public display of poor manners and upbringing that clearly disgusts Darcy and embarrasses Elizabeth

The next morning, Mr Collins proposes marriage to Elizabeth, who refuses him, much to her mother's distress. Collins handily recovers and, within three days, proposes to Elizabeth's close friend, Charlotte Lucas, who immediately accepts. Once marriage arrangments are settled, Charlotte persuades Elizabeth to come for an extended visit to her new bridal home.

Though appearing at the point of proposing marriage to Jane, Mr Bingley abruptly quits Netherfield and returns to London, leaving the lady confused and upset. Elizabeth is convinced that Darcy and Bingley's sister have conspired to separate Jane and Bingley.

In the spring, Elizabeth joins Charlotte and her cousin in Kent. The parsonage is adjacent to Rosings Park—the grand manor of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Mr Darcy's aunt—where Elizabeth and her hosts are frequently invited to socialize. After Mr Darcy and his cousin Colonel Fitzwilliam arrive to visit Lady Catherine, Elizabeth renews her project of teasing Darcy—while his admiration for her grows in spite of his intentions otherwise. Now Elizabeth learns from Fitzwilliam that Darcy prides himself on having separated Bingley from Jane; and, with the poorest of timing, Darcy chooses this moment to admit his love for Elizabeth, and he proposes to her (known as the "trainwreck" proposal!). Incensed by his high-handed and insulting manner, she abruptly refuses him. When he asks why—so uncivil her reply—Elizabeth confronts him with his sabotage of Jane and Bingley's budding relationship and with Wickham's account of Darcy's mistreatment of him, among other complaints.

XXLucas interrupts Darcy and Elizabeth's dance and alludes to a future wedding (of Jane and Bingley);

XXMeanwhile, Mr. Collins behaves fatuously; now Mrs Bennet talks loudly and indiscreetly of her expectation of marriage between Jane and Bingley, and in general the Bennet family and cousin Collins—save Jane and Elizabeth—combine in a public showing of poor manners and upbringing, much to Darcy's silent contempt and Elizabeth's embarrassment.

XXElizabeth, the heroine, has decided to marry only for love, even though she has no real ideas about how she will survive financially. She jokingly notes that her sister Jane, being kind and beautiful, may be responsible for finding a wealthy husband, thus providing for the female members of the family.

II-CURRENT

Mr Collins, the male relative who is to inherit Longbourn, makes a sudden appearance and stays with the Bennets. He is a recently-ordained clergyman employed by the wealthy and patronizing Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Though his stated reason for the visit is reconciliation with the Bennets, Collins soon admits that he wishes to find a wife from among the Bennet sisters. Mr Bennet and Elizabeth are amused by his self-important and pedantic behaviour. He immediately enters pursuit of Jane; however, when Mrs Bennet mentions her eldest daughter's preoccupation with Mr Bingley, Mr Collins turns his attentions to Elizabeth.

At a ball given by Bingley at Netherfield, Elizabeth wants to deepen her acquaintance with Mr Wickham who, to her disappointment, does not appear. She is asked to dance by Mr Darcy and discusses Wickham's fate with him, the harmonious dance leading into an intellectual discussion. As the general expectation of a marriage between Bingley and her sister is voiced by a neighbour, the Bennets - save Jane and Elizabeth  - each reveal a lack of good manners and upbringing, much to Elizabeth's embarrassment.

The next morning, Mr Collins proposes marriage to Elizabeth, who refuses him, much to her mother's distress. Collins quickly recovers and proposes to Elizabeth's close friend, Charlotte Lucas, who immediately accepts. Once the marriage is arranged, Charlotte asks Elizabeth to come for an extended visit.

Though Bingley appears to be on the point of proposing marriage to Jane Bennet, he quits Netherfield, leaving Jane confused and upset. Elizabeth is convinced that Bingley's sister has conspired with Darcy to separate Jane and Bingley.

In the spring, Elizabeth joins Charlotte and her cousin at his parish in Kent. The parish is adjacent to Rosings Park, the grand manor of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Mr Darcy's aunt, where Elizabeth and her hosts are frequently invited. Soon Lady Catherine is visited by Mr Darcy and his cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam. While she continues to tease Darcy, his admiration for her becomes more evident. She learns from Fitzwilliam that Darcy prides himself on having separated Bingley from Jane. Soon after, Darcy admits his love of Elizabeth and proposes to her. Insulted by his high-handed and insulting manner of proposing, Elizabeth refuses him. When he asks why she should refuse him, she confronts him with his sabotage of Bingley's relationship with Jane and Wickham's account of their dealings.

P&PPlot Summary II
CURRENT Deeply shaken by Elizabeth's vehemence and accusations, Darcy writes her a letter justifying his actions. The letter reveals the true relationship between Darcy and Wickham: Wickham had renounced his claim for a clergyman's position in Darcy's patronage for an immediate payment, only to return to claim the position once it was vacant. Not able to provide for his own living, he attempted to elope with Darcy's fifteen-year-old sister Georgiana, and thus secure her part of the family fortune. He was found out and stopped by Darcy only a day before the intended elopement. Regarding Bingley and Jane, Darcy justifies his actions by saying that he had observed in Jane no reciprocal interest for his friend; thus his aim in separating them was to protect Bingley from heartache.CC

RDeeply shaken by Elizabeth's vehemence and accusations, Darcy writes her a letter which reveals the true history between Wickham and himself. Wickham had renounced his legacy—a clergyman's 'living' in Darcy's patronage—for a cash payment; only to return after gambling away the money to again claim the position. After Darcy refused Wickham attempted to elope with Darcy's fifteen-year-old sister Georgiana, and thereby secure her part of the Darcy family fortune. He was found out and stopped only a day before the intended elopement. Regarding Bingley and Jane, Darcy justifies his interference: he had observed in Jane no reciprocal interest for Bingley; thus he aimed to separate them to protect his friend from heartache.X

CDarcy admits he was concerned about the disadvantageous connection with Elizabeth's family, especially her embarrassing mother and wild younger sisters. After reading the letter, Elizabeth begins to question both her family's behaviour and Wickham's credibility. She concludes that Wickham is not as trustworthy as his easy manners would indicate, that he had lied to her previously, and that her early impressions of Darcy might have been inaccurate. Soon after receiving the letter, Elizabeth returns home.CC

RR-In the letter Darcy admits his 'repugnance' for the 'total want of propriety' of her (Elizabeth's) family, especially her mother and three younger sisters. After reading the letter, Elizabeth begins to question both her family's behaviour and Wickham's credibility. She also concludes: Wickham is not as trustworthy as his easy manners would indicate; that he had lied to her previously; and that her early impressions of Darcy'c character might not have been accurate. Soon, Elizabeth returns home.XR



C>Some months later, during a tour of Derbyshire with her Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, Elizabeth visits Pemberley, Darcy's estate. Darcy's housekeeper, an older woman who has known Darcy since childhood, presents Elizabeth and her relatives with a flattering and benevolent impression of his character. Unexpectedly, Darcy arrives at Pemberley as they tour its grounds. He makes an effort to be gracious and welcoming to them, thus strengthening Elizabeth's newly favourable impression of him. Darcy then introduces Elizabeth to his sister Georgiana. He treats the Gardiners, whom previously he would have dismissed as socially inferior, with remarkable politeness and finds them of a more sound character than her other relatives.CC

R>Some months later, during a 'northern' tour, Elizabeth and her Aunt and Uncle Gardiner, visitPemberley, Darcy's estate, while he's away. The elderly housekeeper has known Darcy since childhood, and presents a flattering and benevolent impression of his character to Elizabeth and the Gardiners. As they tour the grounds Darcy unexpectedly returns home. Though shocked—as is Elizabeth—he makes an obvious effort to be gracious and welcoming, and treats the Gardiners—whom before he would have dismissed as socially inferior—with remarkable politeness. Later he introduces Elizabeth to his sister, a high compliment to Elizabeth. Elizabeth is surprised and hopeful of a possible new begining with Darcy.RR XXXXXXXXR---she had been assured Darcy was absent XXXXRand finds them of a more sound character than her other relatives.RR XXXXR, thus strengthening Elizabeth's newly favourable impression of him.RR

C>Elizabeth and Darcy's renewed acquaintance is cut short when news arrives that Elizabeth's younger sister Lydia has run away with Wickham. Initially, the Bennets believe that Wickham and Lydia have eloped, but soon it is surmised that Wickham has no plans to marry Lydia. Lydia's antics threaten the family's reputation and the Bennet sisters with social ruin. Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle hurriedly leave Derbyshire, and Elizabeth is convinced that Darcy will avoid her from now on.CC

R>Elizabeth and Darcy's renewed acquaintance is cut short by news that Lydia, the youngest sister, has run away with Wickham. Initially, the family (wishfully) believe they have eloped, but they soon learn that Wickham has no plans to marry Lydia. Lydia's antics threaten her family—especially the remaining Bennet sisters—with social ruin. Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle hurriedly leave for home; Elizabeth is anguished, and convinced that Darcy will avoid her from now on.XR

C>Soon, thanks to the apparent intervention of Elizabeth's uncle, Lydia and Wickham are found and married. After the marriage, Wickham and Lydia make a visit to Longbourn. While bragging to Elizabeth, Lydia comments that Darcy was present at the wedding. Surprised, Elizabeth sends an inquiry to her aunt, from whom she discovers that Darcy was responsible for both finding the couple and arranging their marriage, at great expense to himself.CC

R>Soon, thanks apparently to Elizabeth's uncle, Lydia and Wickham are found and married. Afterwards, they visit Longbourn; while bragging to Elizabeth, Lydia discloses that Darcy was present at the wedding. Surprised, Elizabeth sends an inquiry to her aunt, from whom she learns that Darcy himself was responsible for both finding the couple and arranging their marriage, at great expense to himself.XR

C>Soon after, Bingley and Darcy return to the area. Bingley proposes marriage to Jane. Lady Catherine surprisingly visits Longbourn, stating that she has heard rumours about Darcy's pending proposal to Elizabeth. She has apparently came with the sole aim of confronting Elizabeth and demanding that she never accept such a proposal. Elizabeth refuses to bow to Lady Catherine's demands. When news of this obstinacy reaches Darcy, it convinces him that her opinion of him has changed. When he visits, he once again proposes marriage. Elizabeth accepts, and the two become engaged.CC

R>Soon after, Bingley returns to Longbourn and proposes marriage to Jane who immediately accepts. Now Lady Catherine surprisingly visits Longbourn. She sternly tells Elizabeth she has heard rumours of Darcy proposing to her; she came with 'determined resolution' to confront Elizabeth and to demand that she never accept such a proposal. Elizabeth refuses to bow to Lady Catherine's demands. Furious, 'Lady C' charges off and tells Darcy of Elizabeth's obstinacy—which convinces him that Elizabeth's opinion of him has changed. He now visits Longbourn, and once again proposes marriage. Elizabeth accepts, and the two become engaged.XR

C>The final chapters of the book establish the future of the characters. Elizabeth and Darcy settle at Pemberley, where Mr Bennet visits often. Mrs Bennet remains frivolous and silly; she often visits the new Mrs Bingley and talks of the new Mrs Darcy. Later, Jane and Bingley move from Netherfield to avoid Jane's mother and Meryton relations and to locate near the Darcys in Derbyshire. Elizabeth and Jane manage to teach Kitty greater social grace, and Mary learns to accept the difference between her personality and her sisters' beauty and mixes more with the outside world. Lydia and Wickham continue to move often, leaving their debts for Jane and Elizabeth to pay off. At Pemberley, Elizabeth and Georgiana grow close, though Georgiana is surprised by Elizabeth's playful treatment of Darcy. Lady Catherine remains very angry with her nephew's marriage but over time the relationship between the two is repaired and she eventually decides to visit them. Elizabeth and Darcy also remain close to her Uncle and Aunt Gardiner.-CUR

NEW>The novel's final chapters establish the futures of the characters: Elizabeth and Darcy settle at Pemberley, where Mr Bennet visits often; Mrs Bennet remains frivolous and silly—she often visits the new Mrs Bingley and talks of the new Mrs Darcy; Jane and Bingley evetually move to locate near the Darcys in Derbyshire. Elizabeth and Jane teach Kitty better social graces, and Mary learns to mix more with the outside world at Meryton. Lydia and Wickham continue to move often, leaving debts for Jane and Elizabeth to pay. At Pemberley, Elizabeth and Georgiana grow close; Georgiana is surprised by Elizabeth's playful treatment of Darcy, and she grows more comfortable with her brother. Lady Catherine holds out, indignant and abusive, over her nephew's marriage, but eventually Darcy is prevailed upon to reconcile with her sufficiently that she condescends to visit. Elizabeth and Darcy remain close to her Uncle and Aunt Gardiner—the agents of their reconciling and uniting.-NEW---++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REV>VitaSack


Victoria Mary Sackville-West, The Hon Lady Nicolson, CH (9 March 1892 – 2 June 1962), best known as Vita Sackville-West, was Contents [hide] 1 Early life 2 Personal life, marriage and bisexuality 2.1 Vita and Rosamund Grosvenor 2.2 Marriage 2.3 Relationship with Violet Trefusis 2.4 Affair with Virginia Woolf, née Stephen 2.5 Other affairs 3 Well known writings 4 Legacy 5 Writings 5.1 Poetry 5.2 Novels 5.3 Translations 5.4 Biographies/Other works 6 Notes 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links

Early life


Vita Sackville-West was born, 1892, at Knole House in Sevenoaks Kent; the then laws

The loss of Knole would affect her for the rest of her life: of the signing in 1947 of documents

Christened "Victoria Mary Sackville-West", she was known as "Vita" throughout her life, probably

Her mother, Victoria Sackville-West, was one of the children of the sexual relations between

Vita´s mother, Victoria, was however a brilliant hostess in Washington

The 2nd Baron Lionel´s natural daughter, Victoria, Vita´s mother, was treated by the American and

Vita´s portrait was painted by Hungarian born portrait painter moved to Vienna, Austria and then to London, England, Philip de Laszlo in 1910.

Vita and Rosamund Grosvenor
Vita's first real friend was Rosamund Grosvenor, (London, England, September 1888 - killed by a German V1-rocket bombing, 30 June 1944),   who was 4 years her senior. She was the daughter of Algernon Henry Grosvenor, (1864 - married 1887 - 1907), her grandfather being Robert Grosvenor, (1801 - 1893), 1st Baron Ebury since September 1857, of Ebury Manor, in the County of Middlesex, England.

Vita, aged then 7, met Rosamund, aged 11,  at Miss Woolf's school in 1899, when Rosamund had been invited to cheer Vita up while her father was fighting in the Boer war. Rosamund and Vita later shared a governess for their morning lessons. Vita fell in love with Rosamund, whom she called 'Roddie' or 'Rose'.

Rosamund, whom Vita called 'the Rubens lady' because she was pink and white and curvy, was besotted with her. "Oh, I dare say I realized vaguely that I had no business to sleep with Rosamund, and I should certainly never have allowed anyone to find it out," she admits in the secret journal, but she saw no conflict between the two relationships: "I really was innocent."

Their secret relationship ended in 1913, when at age 21, Vita married the 27 year-old writer and shifty politician Harold George Nicolson, ( Tehran, Persia, now Iran,  21 November 1886 – 1 May 1968), the third son of British diplomat Arthur Nicolson, 1st Baron Carnock, (1849 – 1928), an Ambassador in Spain, 1904 - 1905 and at Saint Petersburg, Russia,  1906 - 1910.

Lady Sackville invited Rosamund to visit the family at their villa in Monte Carlo; she also stayed with Vita at Knole, at Rue Lafitte and at Sluie. During the Monte Carlo visit Vita wrote in her diary " I love her so much ". When Rosamund left, Vita wrote "Strange how little I minded, she has no personality, that's why."

Marriage
As stated above, in 1913, Vita Sackville-West married Harold Nicolson, nicknamed Hadji, and the couple moved to Cospoli, Constantinople. Following the pattern of his father's career, Harold George, was at different times a diplomat, journalist, broadcaster, Member of Parliament, author of biographies and novels, leading a bisexual intimate life, in what would now be called an open marriage.

The Nicolson - Sackville-West couple was present at the Crowning in Tehran, then Persia,  1926, of Rezā Shāh, 1878-1944, forced to abdicate on September 16, 1941, under the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran.

Both Sackville-West and her husband had consecutive same-sex relations, as did some of the people gravitating around the Bloomsbury Group of writers and artists as Dora Carrington, Lytton Strachey, Gerald Brennan, with whom they had some association.

These were no impediment to a true closeness between Sackville-West and Nicolson, as is seen from their nearly daily correspondence (published after their deaths by their son Nigel), and from an interview they gave for BBC radio after World War II. Harold Nicolson gave up his diplomatic career partly so that he could live with Sackville-West in England, uninterrupted by long solitary postings to missions abroad.

They returned to England in 1914 and bought Long Barn, in Kent; they stayed there from 1915 to 1930 and employed their friend the architect Edwin Lutyens to help design a small parterre.

The couple had two children: Nigel, (1917- 2004), also a well known editor, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, politician and writer, and Benedict, (1914 - 1978),  an art historian. In the 1930s, the family acquired and moved to Sissinghurst Castle, near Cranbrook, in Kent.

Sissinghurst had once been owned by Vita's ancestors, which provided a natural dynastic attraction to her following the loss of Knole. There the couple created the renowned gardens that are now run by the National Trust.

Relationship with Violet Trefusis
The same-sex relationship that had the deepest and most lasting effect on Sackville-West's personal life was with the novelist Violet Trefusis, daughter of the Hon. George Keppel & his wife, Alice Keppel, a mistress of king Edward VII.



They first met when Vita Sackville-West was 12 and Violet was 10, and attended school together for a number of years.

The relationship began when they were both in their teens. Both married, she and Trefusis had eloped several times from 1918 on, mostly to France, where Sackville-West would dress as a young man when they went out, much as French poetess Baroness Dudevant, Amandine Aurore Lucie Dupin, a.k.a. George Sand, (1804 - 1876), had done with ailing younger Polish musician Frederic Chopin, (1810 - 1849),  some 100 years earlier, when residing as a couple, 1838 - beginnings of 1839, with her own 2 kids,  in the Island of Majorca, Spain.

The affair ended badly, with Trefusis pursuing Sackville-West to great lengths until Sackville-West's affairs with other women finally took their toll.

The two women had made, apparently, a bond to remain exclusive to one another, meaning that although both women were married, neither could engage in sexual relations with her own husband. Sackville-West received allegations that Trefusis had been involved sexually with her own husband, indicating she had broken their bond, prompting her to end the affair. By all accounts, Sackville-West was by that time looking for a reason for breaking up the relationship, and used that as justification. Despite the poor ending, the two women were devoted to one another, and deeply in love, and continued occasional liaisons for a number of years afterward, but never rekindled the affair.

Vita's novel Challenge also bears witness to this affair: Sackville-West and Trefusis had started writing this book as a collaborative endeavour, the male character's name, Julian, being Sackville-West's nickname while passing as a man. Her mother, Lady Victoria Sackville-West, the "illegitimate" Spanish-British daughter of the 2nd Baronet Sackville, Lionel, married to a cousin, Vita´s father, recognized as third Baronet Sackville, found the portrayal obvious enough to insist the novel not be published in England; but her own son Nigel Nicolson, (1973, p. 194), however, praises her: "She fought for the right to love, men and women, rejecting the conventions that marriage demands exclusive love, and that women should love only men, and men only women. For this she was prepared to give up everything… How could she regret that the knowledge of it should now reach the ears of a new generation, one so infinitely more compassionate than her own?"

Affair with Virginia Woolf, née Stephen
The affair for which Sackville-West is most remembered was with the prominent writer Virginia Woolf, Adeline Virginia Woolf, ( London, 1882 – Lewes, Sussex, committed suicide, 28 March 1941), in the late 1920s. Woolf, sister of Vanessa Bell, both daughters of Leslie Stephen, founder of the monumental British Dictionary of National Biography, wrote one of her most famous novels, Orlando, described by Sackville-West's son Nigel Nicolson as "the longest and most charming love-letter in literature", as a result of this affair.



Unusually, the moment of the conception of Orlando was documented: Woolf writes in her diary on 5 October 1927: "And instantly the usual exciting devices enter my mind: a biography beginning in the year 1500 and continuing to the present day, called Orlando: Vita; only with a change about from one sex to the other" (posthumous excerpt from her diary by husband Leonard Woolf).

Other affairs
Vita Sackville-West also had a passionate affair with Hilda Matheson, head of the BBC Talks Department. "Stoker" was the pet name given to Hilda by Sackville-West, during their brief affair between 1929 and 1931.

In 1931 Sackville-West became involved in an affair with journalist Evelyn Irons, who had interviewed her after The Edwardians became a bestseller.

She was also involved with her sister-in-law Gwen St. Aubyn, Mary Garman and others not listed here.

Well known writings
The Edwardians (1930) and All Passion Spent (1931) are perhaps her best known novels today. In the latter, the elderly Lady Slane courageously embraces a long suppressed sense of freedom and whimsy after a lifetime of convention. This novel was faithfully dramatized by the BBC in 1986 starring Dame Wendy Hiller.

Sackville-West's science-fantasy Grand Canyon (1942) is a "cautionary tale" (as she termed it) about a Nazi invasion of an unprepared United States. The book takes an unsuspected twist, however, that makes it something more than a typical invasion yarn.

In 1946 Sackville-West was made a Companion of Honour for her services to literature. The following year she began a weekly column in The Observer called "In your Garden". In 1948 she became a founder member of the National Trust's garden committee.

She is less well known as a biographer, and the most famous of those works is her biography of Saint Joan of Arc in the work of the same name. Additionally, she composed a dual biography of Saint Teresa of Ávila and Therese of Lisieux entitled The Eagle and the Dove, a biography of the author Aphra Behn, and a biography of her own grandmother, Spanish dancer, married to a Spaniard, entitled Pepita., the lover and mother of many kids, male/female by British diplomat and second Baronet,  Lionel Sackville-West, (1829 - 1908), as stated extensively above, running by 2010 at some 11 editions in English. For instance, the 1985 edition by Telegraph Books, ISBN10 : 0897607856 ISBN13 : 9780897607858 The first edition was Doubleday Publishers, 1937. There was another by Amereon, date unavailable for the moment, ISBN10 : 084881150X, ISBN13 : 9780848811501

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&0121

Well known writings
The Edwardians (1930) and All Passion Spent (1931) are perhaps her best known novels today. In the latter, the elderly Lady Slane courageously embraces a long suppressed sense of freedom and whimsy after a lifetime of convention. This novel was faithfully dramatized by the BBC in 1986 starring Dame Wendy Hiller.

Sackville-West's science-fantasy Grand Canyon (1942) is a "cautionary tale" (as she termed it) about a Nazi invasion of an unprepared United States. The book takes an unsuspected twist, however, that makes it something more than a typical invasion yarn.

In 1946 Sackville-West was made a Companion of Honour for her services to literature. The following year she began a weekly column in The Observer called "In your Garden". In 1948 she became a founder member of the National Trust's garden committee.

She is less well known as a biographer, and the most famous of those works is her biography of Saint Joan of Arc in the work of the same name. Additionally, she composed a dual biography of Saint Teresa of Ávila and Therese of Lisieux entitled The Eagle and the Dove, a biography of the author Aphra Behn, and a biography of her own grandmother, Spanish dancer, married to a Spaniard, entitled Pepita., the lover and mother of many kids, male/female by British diplomat and second Baronet,  Lionel Sackville-West, (1829 - 1908), as stated extensively above, running by 2010 at some 11 editions in English. For instance, the 1985 edition by Telegraph Books, (ISBN 9780897607858). The first edition was Doubleday Publishers, 1937. There was another by Amereon, date unavailable for the moment, (ISBN 9780848811501).

Legacy


Sissinghurst Castle is now owned by the National Trust, given by Sackville-West's son Nigel in order to escape payment of inheritance taxes. Its gardens are famous and remain the most visited in all of England.

A recording was made of Vita Sackville-West reading from her poem The Land. This was on four 78rpm sides in the Columbia Records 'International Educational Society' Lecture series, Lecture 98 (Cat. no. D 40192/3).

There is a brown "blue plaque" commemorating her and Harold Nicolson on their house in Ebury Street, London

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sissinghurst Castle is now owned by the National Trust, deeded by Sackville-West's son Nigel in order to escape payment of inheritance taxes. Its gardens are famous and remain the most visited in all of England.

In 1933 a recording was made of Vita Sackville-West reading from her poem The Land. This was on four 78rpm sides in the Columbia Records 'International Educational Society' Lecture series, Lecture 98 (Cat. no. D 40192/3).

An English blue plaque placed on their house in Ebury Street, London SW1, commemorates Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson.

SW1.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&&&&&&&

=REV>VitaSackville-West=

R1208||Victoria Mary ('Vita') Sackville-West, The Hon Lady Nicolson, CH (9 March 1892 - 2 June 1962), was an English poet and author; latterly, she was also popularly read as a gardening writer. She won the Hawthornden Prize in 1926 for her long narrative poem The Land, and again in 1933 for Collected Poems—the only writer to do so twice. A serious amateur gardener, she helped create the Sissinghurst Castle gardens in Kent, one of the most-visited gardens in the United Kingdom. In 1930 she wrote The Edwardians, a novel candidly portraying the contemporary lives—including the open sexual behaviours—of Edwardian aristocratic society and depicting a fictionalized family biography of the Sackville-Wests, including a faux-autobiography of her 'dual-gender' role as a child in that family. Of the book Sackville-West wrote that no character in it was wholly fictitious.

In 1946 Sackville-West was made a Companion of Honour for her services to literature. The following year she began a weekly column in The Observer called "In your Garden". In 1948 she became a founder member of the National Trust's garden committee.

Vita Sackville-West achieved notoriety in her time for her exuberant aristocratic life, her singular and open marriage—to the writer and politician Harold George Nicolson—and her outspoken public defense of open marriage, bisexuality and same-sex liaisons. Her decided proclivities comprehended lesbian affairs with several prominent women of the time, alledgedly including Virginia Woolf. endR

== Early life =*



Victoria Mary Sackville-West was known throughout her life as "Vita"—distinctive from her mother's name, also Victoria. She was born at Knole House in Sevenoaks, Kent in 1892, the only child of Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville and Victoria Josefa Dolores Catalina Sackville-West, Baroness Sackville.

Her mother was one of several natural children born of a long-term relationship between Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville, then British ambassador to Spain, and a Spanish woman, Josefa de la Oliva (née Durán y Ortega), who was married during the time to a Spanish national. The surname Sackville-West resulted from the marriage of Vita's great-grandmother Lady Elizabeth Sackville (1796-1870) to George Sackville-West, 5th Earl De La Warr, (1791 - 1869). Their son, Mortimer Sackville-West, 1st Baron Sackville (1820-1888), was awarded the baronetcy in 1876; which title has passed 'heirs male' down the lineage of Vita's ancestral family to the present holder, Robert Bertrand Sackville-West, 7th Baron Sackville. Vita Sackville-West was a descendant of Thomas Sackville, (1536-1608), who, in Tudor period literature, contributed to the play Gorboduc and the continuation poetry Mirror for Magistrates. Sackville-West lived with her parents—she had no sibings—mainly at Knole House, a remarkable English estate held for centuries in her family heritage. She was embued with this heritage, but the laws of primogeniture prevented her from inheriting the estate. On the death of her father in 1928, the estate passed to her uncle Charles Sackville-West, 4th Baron Sackville. The loss of Knole House affected her lifelong; of the signing, in 1947, of documents surrendering Knole to the National Trust, she wrote that it "..nearly broke my heart, putting my signature to what I regarded as a betrayal of all the tradition of my ancestors and the house I loved." end011011R

==Well known writings=*

The Edwardians (1930) and All Passion Spent (1931) are perhaps her best known novels today. In the latter, the elderly Lady Slane courageously embraces a long suppressed sense of freedom and whimsy after a lifetime of convention. This novel was faithfully dramatized by the BBC in 1986 starring Dame Wendy Hiller.

Sackville-West's science-fantasy Grand Canyon (1942) is a "cautionary tale" (as she termed it) about a Nazi invasion of an unprepared United States. The book takes an unsuspected twist, however, that makes it something more than a typical invasion yarn.

She is less well known as a biographer, and the most famous of those works is her Saint Joan of Arc. She also wrote a dual biography of Saint Teresa of Ávila and Therese of Lisieux entitled The Eagle and the Dove; a biography of the author Aphra Behn; and a biography of her grandmother the Spanish dancer Josefa de la Oliva, entitled Pepita..

==Legacy=*



Sissinghurst Castle is now owned by the National Trust, deeded by Sackville-West's son Nigel to escape payment of inheritance taxes. Its gardens are famous and remain the most visited in all of England.

In 1933 a recording was made of Vita Sackville-West reading from her poem The Land. This was on four 78rpm sides in the Columbia Records 'International Educational Society' Lecture series, Lecture 98 (Cat. no. D 40192/3).

An English blue plaque, placed on their house in Ebury Street, London SW1, commemorates Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&end

XXXCURHer mother, Victoria Sackville-West, was one of the natural children of the long-term relationship between British diplomat Lionel Sackville-West, (1827-1908), who at Madrid British Embassy, Spain, 1878 - 1881, and Washington British Embassy, (U.S.A.), 1881 - 1888, and her already married mother, a.k.a. "Pepita", a Spanish Andalusian folklore dancer in Germany, who had married a Spaniard (who outlived the 2nd Baron Sackville). XXXCURVita´s mother, Victoria, was however a brilliant hostess in Washington British Embassy after much embarrassed Queen Victoria, in a meeting with her, probably red faced, Royal advisors, gave her consent to allow the illegitimate Spanish-British beauty, Victoria, to play hostess and First Lady at the British Embassy in Washington, as her father Lionel had previously asked. XXXCURThe 2nd Baron Lionel´s natural daughter, Victoria, Vita´s mother, was treated by the American and Foreign diplomats there, at Washington, as a well groomed and educated lady, with excellent social manners indeed, having many proposals of marriage there, too. XXXCURVita´s portrait was painted by Hungarian born portrait painter moved to Vienna, Austria and then to London, England, Philip de Laszlo in 1910.

REF 							@The Edwardians@@@@ “Vita had done what she set out to do: write a popular success; and she had done it by recreating the lavish, feudal, immoral ancient régime of her childhood. ... Chevron ... is Knole in every detail ... . She promotes the lady of the house to the rank of Duchess, and divides her own personality between the two children of the house – Sebastian, the young heir, dark moody and glamorous, and Viola his withdrawn, straight-haired, sceptical sister. ‘No character in this book is wholly fictitious,’ she wrote provocatively in her Author’s Note.” endREF

REFTherefore in The Edwardians Knole revives in Chevron as well in its physical features as also in the customs cultivated there. The relationship towards her mother was torn between hatred and love, the last overweighing. Vita was not to dwarf her own beauty or question her value system. Therefore Vita tended to suppress her feminine side and adopt traits of masculine courting behaviour. Lady Sackville-West was a major model for the aristocratic ladies in The Edwardians, where Vita also dealt with the mother-daughter relationship of the Edwardian age. Vita’s personality was embossed by dualities. Those can be seen in her relationships, her conception of gender, and herself being torn between conformity to traditions and genetic inheritance and her wish for self-determination. This is mirrored in the characters of Sebastian and Viola in The Edwardians. endREF 						@TheEdwardians@@@@

REF>								@Violet Trefussis@@@@@ Trefusis is best remembered today for her love affair with the wealthy Vita Sackville-West, having figured in Virginia Woolf's novel Orlando. In this romanticized biography of Vita, Trefusis appears in it as the Russian princess Sasha.[2][3]

This was not the only account of this love affair, which appears in reality to have been very much more strenuous than Woolf's enchanting account: both in fiction (Challenge by Sackville-West and Trefusis, Broderie Anglaise a roman à clef in French by Trefusis) and in non-fiction (Portrait of a Marriage by Sackville-West with extensive "clarifications" added by her son Nigel Nicolson) further parts of the story appeared in print.

>>>There are still the surviving letters and diaries written by the partakers in the plot.<<< Apart from those of the two >>>central players,<<<< there are records from Alice Keppel, Victoria Sackville-West, Harold Nicolson, Denys Trefusis and Pat Dansey.[3] The Yale University Library- endREF>									@Violet Trefussis@@@@@

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXrunning by 2010 at some 11 editions in English. For instance, the 1985 edition by Telegraph Books, ISBN10 : 0897607856 ISBN13 : 9780897607858 The first edition was Doubleday Publishers, 1937. There was another by Amereon, date unavailable for the moment, ISBN10 : 084881150X, ISBN13 : 9780848811501

112310

CURVictoria Mary Sackville-West, The Hon Lady Nicolson, CH (9 March 1892 – 2 June 1962), best known as Vita Sackville-West, was an English author and poet. Her long narrative poem, The Land, won the Hawthornden Prize in 1927. She won it again, becoming the only writer to do so, in 1933 with her Collected Poems. She helped create her own gardens in Sissinghurst, Kent, which provide the backdrop to Sissinghurst Castle. She was famous for her exuberant aristocratic life, her strong marriage, and her passionate affair with novelist Virginia Woolf.CUR

R1128Victoria Mary Sackville-West, The Hon Lady Nicolson, CH (9 March 1892 – 2 June 1962), known as Vita Sackville-West, was an English author and poet, and was popular as a gardening writer. She won the Hawthornden Prize in 1927, for her long narrative poem, The Land, and again in 1933 for Collected Poems; the only writer to do so twice. An serious amatuer gardener, she helped (her husband) create the Sissinghurst Castle gardens, in Kent, now one of the best-loved gardens in the whole of the United Kingdom, drawing visitors from all over the world. In 1930 she wrote The Edwardians, a novel achieving best-seller status, and portraying interior lives---including sexual behaviour---of Edwardian aristocratic society, as well as providing a semi-autobiography of her childhood in that society.

Sackville-West achieved notoriety in her time for her exuberant aristocratic life, her singular marriage, and her public acknowledgement and defense of open marriage, bisexuality and same-sex liaisons, comprehending her affairs with several prominent women including Virginia Woolf.R'

}}}The Edwardians (1930) is a one of Vita Sackville-West's later novels and a clear critique of the Edwardian aristocratic society as well as a reflection of her own childhood experiences. It belongs to the genre of the Bildungsroman and describes the development of the main character Sebastian within his social world, in this case the aristocracy of the early 20th century.

}}}who found her greatest popularity in the weekly columns she contributed as gardening correspondent of The Observer, which incidentally—for she never touted it—made her own garden famous. Sissinghurst's garden is one of the best-loved in the whole of the United Kingdom, drawing visitors from all over the world. The xxx She won,x becoming the only writer to do so, in 1933 with her Collected Poems. She helped create her own gardens in Sissinghurst, Kent, which provide the backdrop to Sissinghurst Castle. She was famous for her exuberant aristocratic life, her strong marriage, and her passionate affair with novelist Virginia Woolf.R'

}}}Sissinghurst's garden was created in the 1930s by Vita Sackville-West[citation needed], poet and gardening writer, and her husband Harold Nicolson, author and diplomat. Sackville-West was a writer on the fringes of the Bloomsbury group who found her greatest popularity in the weekly columns she contributed as gardening correspondent of The Observer, which incidentally – for she never touted it – made her own garden famous. {{{

Early life Early Life

CURVita Sackville-West was born, 1892, at Knole House in Sevenoaks Kent; the then laws of primogeniture prevented her from inheriting the estate on the death of her father, and Knole House  and the title instead passed to her uncle Charles Sackville-West,  (1870–1962), 4th Baronet, the cousin  of her mother, Victoria, also a Sackville-West, through her father Lionel, the 2nd Baronet,  labelled however as "illegitimate", but married to her cousin,  the 3rd Baronet Lionel Edward.CUR

R1128Vita Sackville-West was born, 1892, at Knole House in Sevenoaks Kent to Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville and Victoria Sackville-West, who was the illegitimate daughter of Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville and the Spanish dancer Josefa de la Oliva (née Durán y Ortega). The then laws of primogeniture{{Citation needed|date=July 2010}} prevented Vita Sackville-West from inheriting the estate on the death of her father; after which, in 1928, Knole House passed to her uncle Charles Sackville-West, 4th Baronet, and cousin to her mother, Victoria.

REF Her parents, Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville and Victoria Sackville-West, had great influence on the development of Vita’s personality. As their only child@The Edwardians||

REFJosefa Dolores Catalina Sackville-West, Baroness Sackville (1862–1936) was the wife of her cousin Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville and the mother of writer and gardener Vita Sackville-West. The family lived mainly at Knole House, an estate that had been theirs for centuries. Victoria embodied this heritage. [edit] Early life, daughter's notoriety She was the illegitimate daughter of Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville and the Spanish dancer Josefa de la Oliva (née Durán y Ortega, known as Pepita). Her life is mostly overshadowed by the high-profile and controversial bisexual life of her daughter, Vita Sackville-West, who had an open marriage with diplomat Harold Nicolson and affairs with Violet Trefusis and Virginia Woolf.

REF also a Sackville-West, through her father Lionel, the 2nd Baronet,  labelled however as "illegitimate", but married to her cousin,  the 3rd Baronet Lionel Edward.R'

The loss of Knole would affect her for the rest of her life: of the signing in 1947 of documents relinquishing any claim on the property, part of its transition to the National Trust, she wrote that "the signing... nearly broke my heart, putting my signature to what I regarded as a betrayal of all the tradition of my ancestors and the house I loved." She was the daughter of Lionel Edward Sackville-West, 3rd Baron Sackville and his wife Victoria Sackville-West. The surname Sackville-West resulted from the marriage of Vita's great-grandmother Lady Elizabeth Sackville (1796–1870) to George Sackville-West, 5th Earl De La Warr, (1791 - 1869), the Baronetcy being awarded in 1876 to one of his sons, Mortimer Sackville-West, (1820 - 1888), being passed at his death in 1888 to his brother, Lionel, therefore the 2nd Baronet from then on,  here mentioned.

Christened "Victoria Mary Sackville-West", she was known as "Vita" throughout her life, probably to distinguish her from her mother Victoria Sackville-West, (1862 - 1936). She was a descendant of Thomas Sackville, contributor to Gorboduc and Mirror for Magistrates.

Her mother, Victoria Sackville-West, was one of the children of the sexual relations between the second Baronet, British diplomat Lionel Sackville-West, (1827 - 1908), who served his country in the 1880's at Madrid British Embassy, Spain, 1878 - 1881, and Washington British Embassy, (U.S.A.), 1881 - 1888, and her already previously married mother, a.k.a. "Pepita",  a Spanish Andalusian folklore dancer in Germany, who had married a (still living) Spaniard, being thus considered in England as "illegitimate".

Vita´s mother, Victoria, was however a brilliant hostess in Washington British Embassy after much embarrassed Queen Victoria, in a meeting with her, probably red faced, Royal advisors, gave her consent to allow the illegitimate Spanish-British beauty, Victoria, to play hostess and First Lady at the British Embassy in Washington, as her father Lionel had previously asked.

2nd Baronet Lionel´s daughter, "illegitimate" Victoria, Vita´s mother, was treated by the American and Foreign diplomats there, at Washington, as a well groomed and educated lady, with excellent social manners indeed, having many proposals of marriage there, too.

Vita´s portrait was painted by Hungarian born portrait painter moved to Vienna, Austria and then to London, England, Philip de Laszlo in 1910.

Personal life, marriage and bisexuality

Vita and Rosamund Grosvenor
Vita's first real friend was Rosamund Grosvenor, (London, England, September 1888 - killed by a German V1-rocket bombing, 30 June 1944),   who was 4 years her senior. She was the daughter of Algernon Henry Grosvenor, (1864 - married 1887 - 1907), her grandfather being Robert Grosvenor, (1801 - 1893), 1st Baron Ebury since September 1857, of Ebury Manor, in the County of Middlesex, England.

Vita, aged then 7, met Rosamund, aged 11,  at Miss Woolf's school in 1899, when Rosamund had been invited to cheer Vita up while her father was fighting in the Boer war. Rosamund and Vita later shared a governess for their morning lessons. Vita fell in love with Rosamund, whom she called 'Roddie' or 'Rose'.

Rosamund, whom Vita called 'the Rubens lady' because she was pink and white and curvy, was besotted with her. "Oh, I dare say I realized vaguely that I had no business to sleep with Rosamund, and I should certainly never have allowed anyone to find it out," she admits in the secret journal, but she saw no conflict between the two relationships: "I really was innocent." Their secret relationship ended in 1913, when at age 21, Vita married the 27 year-old writer and shifty politician Harold George Nicolson, ( Tehran, Persia, now Iran,  21 November 1886 – 1 May 1968), the third son of British diplomat Arthur Nicolson, 1st Baron Carnock, (1849 – 1928), an Ambassador in Spain, 1904 - 1905 and at Saint Petersburg, Russia,  1906 - 1910.

Lady Sackville invited Rosamund to visit the family at their villa in Monte Carlo; she also stayed with Vita at Knole, at Rue Lafitte and at Sluie. During the Monte Carlo visit Vita wrote in her diary " I love her so much ". When Rosamund left, Vita wrote "Strange how little I minded, she has no personality, that's why."

Marriage
As stated above, in 1913, Vita Sackville-West married Harold Nicolson, nicknamed Hadji, and the couple moved to Cospoli, Constantinople. Following the pattern of his father's career, Harold George, was at different times a diplomat, journalist, broadcaster, Member of Parliament, author of biographies and novels, leading a bisexual intimate life, in what would now be called an open marriage.

The Nicolson - Sackville-West couple was present at the Crowning in Tehran, then Persia,  1926, of Rezā Shāh, 1878-1944, forced to abdicate on September 16, 1941, under the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran.

Both Sackville-West and her husband had consecutive same-sex relations, as did some of the people gravitating around the Bloomsbury Group of writers and artists as Dora Carrington, Lytton Strachey, Gerald Brennan, with whom they had some association.

These were no impediment to a true closeness between Sackville-West and Nicolson, as is seen from their nearly daily correspondence (published after their deaths by their son Nigel), and from an interview they gave for BBC radio after World War II. Harold Nicolson gave up his diplomatic career partly so that he could live with Sackville-West in England, uninterrupted by long solitary postings to missions abroad.

They returned to England in 1914 and bought Long Barn, in Kent; they stayed there from 1915 to 1930 and employed their friend the architect Edwin Lutyens to help design a small parterre.

The couple had two children: Nigel, (1917- 2004), also a well known editor, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, politician and writer, and Benedict, (1914 - 1978),  an art historian. In the 1930s, the family acquired and moved to Sissinghurst Castle, near Cranbrook, in Kent.

Sissinghurst had once been owned by Vita's ancestors, which provided a natural dynastic attraction to her following the loss of Knole. There the couple created the renowned gardens that are now run by the National Trust.

Relationship with Violet Trefusis

=E:CrIMSN= (Everybody: CRam In More Stuff Now)

— — — —
 * Elizabeth Bennet is the main character and protagonist. The reader sees the unfolding plot and the other characters mostly from her viewpoint. The second of the Bennet daughters at twenty years old, she is intelligent, lively, attractive, and witty, but with tendencies to judge on first impressions and perhaps to be a little selective of the evidence upon which she bases her judgments. As the plot begins, her closest relationships are with her father, her sister Jane, her aunt Mrs Gardiner, and her best friend Charlotte Lucas.
 * rElizabeth Bennet is the main character and protagonist. The reader sees the unfolding plot and the other characters mostly from her viewpoint. The second of the Bennet daughters at twenty years old, she is intelligent, lively, attractive, and witty, but with tendencies to judge on first impressions and to be selective of the evidence upon which she makes her judgments. Her closest confidents are her father, sister Jane, Aunt Gardiner, and her best friend Charlotte Lucas.
 * Mr Fitzwilliam Darcy is the main male character. Twenty-eight years old and unmarried, Darcy is the wealthy owner of the famous family estate of Pemberley in Derbyshire. Handsome, tall, and intelligent, but not convivial, his aloof decorum and moral rectitude are seen by many as an excessive pride and concern for social status. He makes a poor impression on strangers, such as the gentry of Meryton, but is valued by those who know him well. Later in the story, Elizabeth unknowingly teaches him to be more humble and caring.
 * rFitzwilliam Darcy is the main male character. Twenty-eight years old and unmarried, Darcy is the wealthy owner of the famous family estate of Pemberley in Derbyshire. Handsome, tall, and intelligent, but not convivial, his aloof decorum and moral rectitude are seen by many as an excessive pride and concern for social status. He makes a poor impression on strangers, such as the gentry of Meryton, but is valued by those who know him well.
 * Mr Bennet has a wife and five daughters, and seems to have inured himself to his fate. A bookish and intelligent gentleman somewhat withdrawn from society, he dislikes the indecorous behaviours of his wife and three younger daughters; but he offers little beyond mockery by way of correcting them. Rather than guiding these daughters to more sensible understanding, he is instead content to laugh at them. He relates very well with his two elder daughters, Jane and Elizabeth, showing them much more love and respect than his wife and younger daughters.
 * rMr Bennet has a wife and five daughters, and seems to have inured himself to his fate. A bookish and intelligent gentleman somewhat withdrawn from society, he dislikes the indecorous behaviours of his wife and three younger daughters; but he offers little beyond mockery by way of correcting them. He relates very well with his two elder daughters, Jane and Elizabeth, showing them much more love and respect than towards his wife and younger daughters.
 * Mrs Bennet is the wife of her social superior Mr Bennet, and mother of Elizabeth and her sisters. She is frivolous, excitable, and narrow-minded, and is susceptible to attacks of tremors and palpitations. Her public manners and social climbing are embarrassing to Jane and Elizabeth. Her favourite daughter is Jane.
 * rMrs Bennet is the wife of her social superior Mr Bennet, and mother of Elizabeth and her sisters. She is frivolous, excitable, and narrow-minded, and is susceptible to attacks of tremors and palpitations. Her public manners and ?efforts of social climbing embarrass Jane and Elizabeth.



— — — — — — — — — — —
 * Jane Bennet is the eldest Bennet sister. Twenty-two years old when the novel begins, she is considered the most beautiful young lady in the neighbourhood. Her character is contrasted with Elizabeth's as sweeter, shyer, and equally sensible, but not as clever. Her most notable trait is a desire to see only the good in others. Jane is closest to Elizabeth, and her character id often contrasted with of Elizabeth.
 * rJane Bennet, at twenty-two, is the eldest Bennet sister and is closest to Elizabeth. Considered the most beautiful young lady in the neighbourhood, she is contrasted with Elizabeth as sweeter, shyer, and equally sensible, but not as clever. Her most notable trait is a desire to see only the good in others.
 * Mary Bennet is the only plain Bennet sister, and rather than join in some of the family activities, she reads, although she is often impatient for display. Her age is not mentioned in the book. She works hard for knowledge and accomplishment, but has neither genius nor taste. At the ball at Netherfield, she embarrasses her family by singing badly.
 * rMary Bennet, described as the only plain Bennet sister, would rather read than join most family activities. She strives for knowledge and accomplishment, and though impatient to play or sing in public, her untutored performance is often embarrassing.
 * Catherine "Kitty" Bennet is the fourth Bennet sister, aged seventeen. She is portrayed as a less headstrong but equally silly shadow of Lydia.
 * rCatherine "Kitty" Bennet is the fourth Bennet sister. She is depicted as shadowing her younger sister Lydia: less headstrong but equally silly.
 * Lydia Bennet is the youngest Bennet sister, aged fifteen when the novel begins. She is repeatedly described as frivolous and headstrong. Her main activity in life is socialising, especially flirting with the military officers stationed in the nearby town of Meryton. She dominates her older sister Kitty and is supported in the family by her mother. After she elopes with Wickham and he is paid to marry her, she shows no remorse for the embarrassment that her actions caused for her family, but acts as if she has made a wonderful match of which her sisters should be jealous.
 * rLydia Bennet is the youngest Bennet sister at fifteen years old. She is portrayed as frivolous and headstrong. Her everyday interest is socialising, especially flirting with the military officers stationed in nearby Meryton. She dominates her older sister Kitty and is spoiled by her mother's thoughtless indulgence. After eloping with Wickham and returning home married—he is paid to marry her—she shows no consciousness of embarrassing her family; she believes she has made a wonderful match of which her sisters are jealous.
 * Charles Bingley is a young gentleman without an estate. His wealth was recent, and he is seeking a permanent home. He rents the Netherfield estate near Longbourn when the novel opens. Twenty-two years old at the start of the novel, handsome, good-natured, and wealthy, he is contrasted with his friend Darcy as being less intelligent but kinder and more charming and hence more popular in Meryton. He lacks resolve and is easily influenced by others.
 * rCharles Bingley is a young gentleman of recent family wealth and is looking to establish a gentleman's estate in the country. As the novel opens he has just rented Netherfield near Longbourn. At age twenty-two, handsome, good-natured, and wealthy, he is contrasted with his friend Darcy as being less intelligent but kinder and more charming, hence more popular in Meryton. He lacks resolve and is easily influenced by others.
 * Caroline Bingley is the snobbish sister of Charles Bingley. Clearly harbouring romantic intentions on Darcy herself, she views his growing attachment to Elizabeth Bennet with some jealousy, resulting in disdain and frequent verbal attempts to undermine Elizabeth and her society.
 * rCaroline Bingley is the snobbish sister of Charles Bingley. Clearly harbouring intentions of her own for Darcy, she jealously notes his growing interest in Elizabeth Bennet, and makes frequent verbal jabs to undermine Elizabeth.
 * George Wickham is an old acquaintance of Darcy from childhood, and an officer in the militia unit stationed near Meryton. Superficially charming, he rapidly forms a friendship with Elizabeth Bennet, prompting remarks upon his suitability as a potential husband. He spreads numerous tales about the wrongs Darcy has done to him, colouring the popular perception of the other man in local society. It is eventually revealed that these tales are distortions, and that Darcy was the wronged man in their acquaintance.
 * rGeorge Wickham is a life-long acquaintance of Darcy, from their childhoods, and he is recently (made) an officer in the militia encamped near Meryton. Superficially charming, he quickly befriends Elizabeth, appearing to offer as a potential suitor. He spreads public tales about wrongs done him by Darcy, colouring perceptions in local society against the other man.
 * William Collins, aged twenty-five, is Mr Bennet's clergyman nephew and, as Mr Bennet has no son, heir to his estate. Austen described him as "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society." Collins boasts of his acquaintance with and advantageous patronage from Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Mr Bennet, Jane, and Elizabeth consider him pompous and lacking in common sense. Elizabeth's rejection of Collins' marriage proposal is welcomed by her father, regardless of the financial benefit to the family of such a match. Elizabeth is later somewhat distressed, although understanding, when her closest friend, Charlotte Lucas, consents to marry Collins out of her need for a settled position and to avoid the low status and lack of autonomy of an old maid.
 * rWilliam Collins, age twenty-five, is Mr Bennet's clergyman cousin—and heir to Longbourne because Mr Bennet has no son. Austen described him as "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society." Collins boasts of his advantageous patronage from Lady Catherine de Bourgh and soon proposes marriage to Elizabeth. Her rejection of him is welcomed by her father, regardless of the financial benefit to the family of such a match.
 * Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who possesses wealth and social standing, is haughty, domineering and condescending. Mr Collins, among others, enables these characteristics by deferring to her opinions and desires. Elizabeth, however, is duly respectful but not intimidated. Darcy, whilst respectful of their shared family connection, is offended by her lack of manners, especially towards Elizabeth, and later, when pressed by her demand that he not marry Elizabeth, is quick to assert his intentions to marry whom he wishes.
 * rLady Catherine de Bourgh, possessing wealth and social standing, is haughty, domineering and condescending. Mr Collins, among others, enables her self-absorbed personality by deferring to her opinions and desires. Elizabeth is duly respectful but is determined not to be intimidated. Darcy, whilst respectful of their shared family connection, is offended by her lack of manners, especially towards Elizabeth.
 * Aunt and Uncle Gardiner: he is Mrs Bennet's brother, and a successful businessman in London—quite sensible and gentleman-like. His wife is close with—and is a mentor to—both Elizabeth and Jane, and she proves vital in assisting Elizabeth and in interpreting Darcy. Jane stays with the Gardiners in London for a while, and Elizabeth travels with them to Derbyshire, where she again meets Darcy. They both support the Bennets by trying to help Lydia when she elopes with Wickham.
 * rAunt and Uncle Gardiner: he is Mrs Bennet's brother, a successful businessman in London—quite sensible and gentleman-like. She is a mentor to both Elizabeth and Jane, and she proves vital in assisting Elizabeth and in interpreting Darcy. Elizabeth travels with them to the north country, arriving in Derbyshire where she unexpectedly encounters Darcy. The Gardiners support the Bennets by searching for and 'keeping' Lydia after she elopes with Wickham.
 * Georgiana Darcy is Mr Darcy's quiet and amiable younger sister, aged sixteen when the story begins. In a letter to Elizabeth, Darcy describes events of the previous year, when Wickham tried to persuade Georgiana to elope with him, so that he could inherit her £30,000. Wickham said that she was proud, but later, Elizabeth meets her at Pemberley, where she is actually amiable and sweet. She is very happy with her brother's choosing of Elizabeth and maintains a close relationship with them both.
 * rGeorgiana Darcy, age sixteen, is Mr Darcy's quiet and amiable younger sister. In his letter to Elizabeth, Darcy describes events of the previous year, when Wickham nearly persuaded Georgiana to elope with him—which would have gained him control of her 'portion', some £30,000.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++00000000000-123110-010411


 * rElizabeth Bennet is the main character and protagonist. The reader sees the unfolding plot and other characters mostly from her viewpoint. The second of the Bennet sisters at twenty years old, Austen presents her as intelligent, lively, attractive—and witty, sometimes 'bitingly' so; but she tends to judge on first impressions and to be selective of the evidence supporting her judgments. Her close confidants are her father, sister Jane, Aunt Gardiner, and her best friend Charlotte Lucas.
 * rFitzwilliam Darcy is the main male character. Twenty-eight years old and unmarried, Darcy is the wealthy owner of the famed estate Pemberley in Derbyshire. Handsome, tall, and intelligent, but not convivial, his aloof decorum and moral rectitude are seen by many as excessive pride and concern for social status. He makes a poor impression on strangers, including Elizabeth and others in Meryton, but is valued by those who know him well.
 * rMr Bennet has a wife and five daughters, and seems to have inured himself to his fate, that of a bookish and intelligent gentleman somewhat withdrawn from society. He disdains the indecorous behaviours of his wife and the three younger sisters, but offers little guidance (beyond mockery) by way of correcting them. He relates very well with his two elder daughters, Jane and Elizabeth, showing them much more love and respect than his wife and younger daughters.
 * rMrs Bennet is the wife of her social superior Mr Bennet, and mother of Elizabeth and her sisters. She is frivolous, excitable, and narrow-minded, and is susceptible to attacks of tremors and palpitations. Her public manners and aspirations for social climbing embarrass Jane and Elizabeth.




 * rJane Bennet, at twenty-two the eldest Bennet sister, is considered the most beautiful young lady in the neighbourhood. She is contrasted with Elizabeth as sweeter, shyer, and equally sensible, but not as clever. Her most notable trait is a desire to see only the good in others.
 * rMary Bennet, described as the only plain Bennet sister, prefers to read 'great books' and 'make extracts'. She strives for knowledge and accomplishment; and though impatient to play or sing in public, her untutored performance is often embarrassing.
 * rCatherine "Kitty" Bennet is the fourth Bennet sister. She is depicted as shadowing her younger sister Lydia—less headstrong but equally silly.
 * rrLydia Bennet is the youngest Bennet sister at fifteen years old. Portrayed as frivolous and headstrong, she is spoiled by her mother's indulgence of her. Her everyday interest is socialising, especially flirting with the military officers stationed near Meryton. Both parents are negligent of the social dangers of her behaviour.
 * rCharles Bingley, a young scion of recent family wealth, is looking to establish a gentleman's estate in the country. As the novel opens he has just rented Netherfield near Longbourn. Handsome, good-natured, and wealthy, he is popular in Meryton—and is contrasted with his friend Darcy as being less intelligent but kinder and more charming. He lacks resolve and is easily influenced by others, especially Darcy.
 * rCaroline Bingley is the snobbish sister of Charles Bingley. Clearly harbouring intentions of her own for Darcy, she jealously notes his growing interest in Elizabeth Bennet, and makes frequent verbal jabs aimed to undermine that lady's chances with Darcy.
 * rGeorge Wickham is a life-long acquaintance of Darcy from their childhoods, and is recently (made) an officer in the militia encamped near Meryton. Superficially charming, he early-on befriends Elizabeth, appearing to offer as a suitor. He spreads public tales about wrongs done him by Darcy, colouring perceptions in local society against the other man.
 * rWilliam Collins, age twenty-five, is Mr Bennet's clergyman cousin and—because Mr Bennet has no son—the legal heir to the Bennet family home Longbourne. Austen described him as "not a sensible man, and the deficiency of nature had been but little assisted by education or society." Collins boasts of his patronage from Lady Catherine de Bourgh and soon proposes marriage to Elizabeth.
 * rLady Catherine de Bourgh, possessing wealth and social standing, is haughty, domineering and condescending. Mr Collins, among others, enables her self-absorbed behaviour by ever-praising her opinions and desires. Elizabeth shows due respect, but is determined not to be intimidated. Darcy, whilst respectful of their shared family connection, is offended by her lack of manners, especially towards Elizabeth.
 * rrAunt and Uncle Gardiner: he is Mrs Bennet's brother, a successful businessman in London—quite sensible and gentleman-like. She is a mentor to both Elizabeth and Jane, and she proves vital in assisting Elizabeth and in interpreting Darcy.
 * rGeorgiana Darcy, now age sixteen, is Mr Darcy's quiet, younger sister. Darcy is particularly incensed that, the year before, Wickham nearly persuaded the young Georgiana to elope with him.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&--

XX/Lydia/After eloping with Wickham and returning home married—he is paid to marry her—she shows no consciousness of embarrassing her family; she believes she has made an enviable match of which her sisters are jealous.

XX/Gardiner/Elizabeth tours with them to the north country, arriving in Derbyshire where she unexpectedly encounters Darcy. After Lydia elopes with Wickham the Gardiners commit to finding her and mitigating the damage.

Plot summary
XThe main plot of the novel is driven by a particular situation of the Bennet family: if Mr Bennet dies soon, his wife and five daughters will be without home or income, as the Longbourn estate is entailed to one of Mr Bennet's collateral relatives—male only in this case—by the legal terms of fee tail. Mrs Bennet worries about this predicament, and wishes to find husbands for her daughters quickly. The father doesn't seem to be worried at all.

XThe narrative opens with Mr Bingley, a wealthy young gentleman and a very eligible bachelor, renting a country estate near the Bennets called Netherfield. He arrives accompanied by his fashionable sisters and his good friend, Mr Darcy. Attending the local assembly (dance) Bingley is well received in the community, while Darcy begins his acquaintance with smug condescension and 'proud' distaste for all the country locals. After Darcy's haughty rejection of her at the dance, Elizabeth resolves to match his coldness and pride, his prejudice against country people, with her own prideful anger—in biting wit and sometimes sarcastic remarks—directed towards him. (Elizabeth's disposition leads her into prejudices regarding Darcy and others, such that she is unable to 'sketch' their characters accurately.)X

XSoon, Bingley and Jane begin to grow close. Elizabeth's best friend, Charlotte, advises that Jane should show her affection to Bingley more openly, as he may not realise that she is indeed interested in him. Elizabeth flippantly dismisses the opinion—replying that Jane is shy and modest, and that if Bingley can't see how she feels, he is a simpleton—and she doesn't tell Jane of Charlotte's warning. Later Elizabeth begins a friendship with Mr Wickham, a militia officer who is of long personal acquaintance with Darcy—they grew up together. Wickham tells her he has been seriously mistreated by the proud man; Elizabeth seizes on this news as further reason to dislike Darcy. Ironically, Darcy begins to find himself drawn to Elizabeth, unbeknownst to her.X

XMr Collins, the male relative who is to inherit Longbourn, makes an appearance and stays with the Bennets. Recently ordained a clergyman, he is employed as parish rector by the wealthy and patronising Lady Catherine de Bourgh of Kent. Mr Bennet and Elizabeth are amused by his self-important and pedantic behaviour. Though his stated reason for visiting is to reconcile with the Bennets, Collins soon confides to Mrs Bennet that he wishes to find a wife from among the Bennet sisters. He first offers to pursue Jane; however, Mrs Bennet mentions that her eldest daughter is soon likely to be engaged, and redirects his attentions to Elizabeth.X

XAt a ball given by Bingley at Netherfield, Elizabeth intends to deepen her acquaintance with Mr Wickham, who, however, fails to appear. She is asked to dance by Mr Darcy; here she raises Wickham's fate with him, causing their harmonious dance to fall into a 'testy' discussion. The ball proceeds as spectacle: the arriviste Sir William Lucas shocks Darcy, alluding to Jane and Bingley and 'a certain desirable event'; Mr. Collins behaves fatuously; now Mrs Bennet talks loudly and indiscreetly of her expectation of marriage between Jane and Bingley, and, in general, cousin Collins and the Bennet family—save Jane and Elizabeth—combine in a public display of poor manners and upbringing that clearly disgusts Darcy and embarrasses Elizabeth.X

XThe next morning, Mr Collins proposes marriage to Elizabeth, who refuses him, much to her mother's distress. Collins handily recovers and, within three days, proposes to Elizabeth's close friend, Charlotte Lucas, who immediately accepts. Once marriage arrangements are settled, Charlotte persuades Elizabeth to come for an extended visit to her new bridal home.X

XThough appearing at the point of proposing marriage to Jane, Mr Bingley abruptly quits Netherfield and returns to London, leaving the lady confused and upset. Elizabeth is convinced that Darcy and Bingley's sister have conspired to separate Jane and Bingley.X

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

RThe main plot of the novel is driven by a particular situation of the Bennet family: if Mr Bennet dies soon, his wife and five daughters will be without home or income, as the Longbourn estate is entailed to one of Mr Bennet's collateral relatives—male only in this case—by the legal terms of fee tail. Mrs Bennet worries about this predicament, and wishes to find husbands for her daughters quickly.

RThe narrative opens with Mr Bingley, a wealthy young gentleman and a very eligible bachelor, renting Netherfield, a country estate near the Bennets. He arrives accompanied by his fashionable sisters and his good friend, Mr Darcy. Attending the local assembly (dance) Bingley is well received in the community, whereas Darcy offends all, showing 'proud' distaste for the country locals. After Darcy haughtyly rejects dancing with her, Elizabeth, resolves to match his coldness and pride, his prejudice against country people, with her own sarcastic wit (and prideful anger). (This leads her into prejudice which affects her ability to 'sketch' the characters of Darcy, and later, Mr Wickham.)

rRThe narrative opens with Mr Bingley, a wealthy young gentleman and a very eligible bachelor, renting Netherfield, a country estate near the Bennets. He arrives accompanied by his fashionable sisters and his good friend, Mr Darcy. Attending the local assembly (dance) Bingley is well received in the community, while Darcy offends all, showing 'proud' distaste for the country locals. After Darcy haughtily rejects dancing with her, Elizabeth resolves to match his coldness, pride, and prejudice with her own sarcastic wit and banter; all which leads her into prejudice and impairs her ability to 'sketch' the characters of Darcy and others.rR

rRSoon, Bingley and Jane begin to grow close. Elizabeth's best friend, Charlotte, advises that Jane should show her affection to Bingley more openly, as he may not realise that she is indeed interested in him. Elizabeth flippantly dismisses the opinion—replying that Jane is shy and modest—and she doesn't mention Charlotte's warning to Jane. Elizabeth begins a friendship with Mr Wickham, a militia officer of long personal acquaintance with Darcy—they grew up together. Wickham tells her he has been seriously mistreated by Darcy; for Elizabeth, this is more good cause to dislike the proud man. Ironically, Darcy begins to be drawn to Elizabeth, unbeknownst to her.rR

RMr Collins, the male cousin who is to inherit Longbourn, makes an appearance and stays with the Bennets. Recently ordained, he is employed as parish rector by the wealthy Lady Catherine de Bourgh of Kent. Mr Bennet, Jane, and Elizabeth are amused by his self-important and pedantic behaviour. Collins soon confides to Mrs Bennet that he wishes to find a wife from among the Bennet sisters. He offers to pursue Jane, but Mrs Bennet redirects his attentions to Elizabeth.

RMr Bingley gives a ball at Netherfield where Darcy asks Elizabeth to dance. Here she raises Wickham's fate with him, causing their harmonious dance to fall into a 'testy' tete a tete. The ball then proceeds as spectacle: the arriviste Sir William Lucas shocks Darcy by alluding to Jane and Bingley and marriage; Mr. Collins behaves fatuously; now Mrs Bennet talks loudly and indiscreetly of expecting marriage between Jane and Bingley; and, in general, cousin Collins and the Bennet family—save Jane and Elizabeth—combine in a public display of poor manners and upbringing that disgusts Darcy and embarrasses Elizabeth.

rRThe next morning Mr Collins proposes to Elizabeth, who refuses him, much to her mother's distress. Collins handily recovers and within three days proposes to Elizabeth's close friend, Charlotte Lucas, who immediately accepts. Later, Charlotte persuades Elizabeth to come and visit her when she is settled in her new bridal home.

RThough appearing at the point of proposing to Jane, Bingley abruptly quits Netherfield and returns to London, leaving the lady confused and upset. Elizabeth believes that Darcy and Bingley's sister have conspired to separate Jane and Bingley.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In the spring, Elizabeth joins Charlotte and her cousin in Kent. The parsonage is adjacent to Rosings Park—the grand manor of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Mr Darcy's aunt—where Elizabeth and her hosts are frequently invited to socialize. After Mr Darcy and his cousin Colonel Fitzwilliam arrive to visit Lady Catherine, Elizabeth renews her project of teasing Darcy—while his repressed admiration for her grows. Now Elizabeth learns from Fitzwilliam that Darcy prides himself on having separated Bingley from Jane. With the poorest of timing, Darcy chooses this moment to admit his love for Elizabeth; and he proposes to her. Incensed by his high-handed and insulting manner, she abruptly refuses him. When he asks why—so uncivil her reply—Elizabeth confronts him with his sabotage of Jane and Bingley's budding relationship and with Wickham's account of Darcy's mistreatment of him, among other complaints.

Deeply shaken by Elizabeth's vehemence and accusations, Darcy writes her a letter revealing the true history between Wickham and himself. Wickham had renounced his legacy—a clergyman's 'living' in Darcy's patronage—for a cash payment, only to return after gambling away the money to again claim the position. After Darcy refused, Wickham attempted to elope with Darcy's fifteen-year-old sister Georgiana, and thereby secure her part of the Darcy family fortune. He was found out and stopped just in time. As to Bingley and Jane, Darcy justifies his interference: he had observed in Jane no reciprocal interest for Bingley; thus he aimed to separate them to protect his friend from heartache.

In the letter Darcy admits his 'repugnance' for the 'total want of propriety' of her (Elizabeth's) family, especially her mother and three younger sisters. After reading the letter, Elizabeth begins to question both her family's behaviour and Wickham's credibility. Further, she concludes: Wickham is not as trustworthy as his easy manners would indicate; that he had lied to her previously; and that her first impressions of Darcy's character might not have been accurate. Now chastened, Elizabeth soon returns home.



Some months later, during a 'northern' tour, Elizabeth and her Aunt and Uncle Gardiner visit Pemberley, Darcy's estate, while he's away. The elderly housekeeper has known Darcy since childhood and presents a flattering, benevolent impression of his character to Elizabeth and the Gardiners. As they tour the grounds Darcy unexpectedly returns home. Though shocked he makes an obvious effort to be gracious and welcoming, and treats the Gardiners—whom before he would have dismissed as socially inferior—with remarkable politeness. He asks to introduce his sister to Elizabeth, a high compliment to Elizabeth; who now is surprised and hopeful of a possible new beginning with Darcy.

Elizabeth and Darcy's renewed acquaintance is cut short by news that Lydia, the youngest sister, has run away with Wickham. Initially, the Bennets (want to) believe they have eloped, but soon learn that Wickham has no plans to marry Lydia. Lydia's antics threaten her family—especially the remaining Bennet sisters—with social ruin. Elizabeth and her aunt and uncle hurriedly leave for home; Elizabeth is anguished, and convinced that Darcy will avoid her from now on.

Soon, thanks apparently to Elizabeth's uncle, Lydia and Wickham are found and married. Afterwards, they visit Longbourn. While bragging to Elizabeth, Lydia discloses that Darcy was present at the wedding. Shocked, Elizabeth soon learns, from her aunt, that Darcy himself was responsible for both finding the couple and arranging their marriage, at great expense to himself.

Bingley returns to Longbourn and proposes to Jane who immediately accepts. Now Lady Catherine surprisingly visits Longbourn. She sternly tells Elizabeth she has heard rumours of Darcy proposing to her; she came with 'determined resolution' to confront Elizabeth and to demand that she never accept such a proposal. Elizabeth refuses to bow to Lady Catherine's demands. Furious, 'Lady C' charges off and tells Darcy of Elizabeth's obstinacy—which clues him that Elizabeth's opinion of him has, perhaps, changed. He now visits Longbourn, and once again proposes; Elizabeth accepts, and the two become engaged.

The novel's final chapters establish the futures of the characters: Elizabeth and Darcy settle at Pemberley, where Mr Bennet visits often; Mrs Bennet remains frivolous and silly—she often visits the new Mrs Bingley and talks of the new Mrs Darcy; Jane and Bingley eventually move to locate near the Darcys in Derbyshire. Elizabeth and Jane teach Kitty better social graces, and Mary learns to mix more with the outside world at Meryton. Lydia and Wickham continue to move often, leaving debts for Jane and Elizabeth to pay. At Pemberley, Elizabeth and Georgiana---who is enlightened by Elizabeth's playful treatment of Darcy---grow close. Lady Catherine holds out but eventually Darcy is prevailed upon to reconcile with her, sufficiently that she condescends to visit. Elizabeth and Darcy remain close to Aunt and Uncle Gardiner—the agents of their reconciling and uniting.

=Au contraire Ou reparaire=

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW___________________@My Antonia

Major Characters
Jim (Burden): the narrator and protagonist of the novel, Jim is a successful lawyer who grew up in Black Hawk, Nebraska

Ántonia (Shimerda): the bold and free-hearted young Bohemian girl who arrives with her family as immigrants from Europe

Josiah and Emmaline Burden: Jim's sturdy, established grandparents, working their farm in Nebraska at the turn of the 20th century

Mr. and Mrs. Shimerda: Ántonia's immigrant parents from Bohemia

Mr. and Mrs. Harling: next-door neighbors (after the Burdens move to Black Hawk) who take Ántonia in as a hired girl

Otto Fuchs: farm hand from Austria at the Burden place

Jake Marpole: farm hand from Virginia at the Burden place

Larry Donovan: train conductor and a 'professional ladies man'; Ántonia's choice of beau

Anton Cuzak: Ántonia's later husband

Ambrosch, Marek and Yulka: Ántonia's brothers and sister

Lena Lingard: hired girl come from the countryside to work in Black Hawk

Tiny Soderball: hired girl who came from the countryside to work at the Gardener Hotel in Black Hawk

Minor characters include: Gaston Cleric, Peter and Pavel, Ole Benson, The Cutters, Widow Steavens, Anton Jelinek. ??Jade Owens?

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWend

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW______________________@Kafka

Critical interpretations
The multivalent nature of Kafka's prose allows for variety of interpretation. Critics have interpreted Kafka's works in the context of a variety of literary schools, such as modernism, magic realism and so on. The apparent hopelessness and absurdity that seem to permeate his works are considered emblematic of existentialism. Others have tried to locate a Marxist influence in his satirization of bureaucracy in pieces such as In the Penal Colony, The Trial and The Castle, whereas others point to anarchism as an inspiration for Kafka's anti-bureaucratic viewpoint. Still others have interpreted his works through the lens of Judaism (Borges made a few perceptive remarks in this regard), through Freudianism (because of his familial struggles), or as allegories of a metaphysical quest for God (Thomas Mann was a proponent of this theory).

The alienation and persecution found in Kafka's work are emphasized by critics—with good reason—but over-emphasis on these themes, notably in the work of Marthe Robert, inspired counter-criticism by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. They argue, in Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, that there is much more to his work than the stereotype of a lonely figure writing out of anguish—that Kafka's work is more deliberate, subversive and more "joyful" than may first appear. They point out that reading his work while focusing on the futility of his characters' struggles reveals Kafka's play at humor; that his work here isn't necessarily a reflection of his own struggles; rather it describes how people often invent struggles.

Biographers have noted that Kafka would read drafts of his works to his friends, typically concentrating on his humorous prose. Milan Kundera refers to Kafka's essentially surrealist humour as a main influence on later writers such as Federico Fellini, Gabriel García Márquez, Carlos Fuentes and Salman Rushdie. García Márquez noted it was the reading of Kafka's The Metamorphosis that showed him "that it was possible to write in a different way."

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW___________________@Persuasion

FIXIT-100410/Persuasion-down2C---\/

D> re: down-rating of P --- from B to C. ask the community to advise and participate ...to join me  ...and let's fix the problems  ...start P a new path to improvement and stability...

Notes>

1 stability vs CRIMSON

2 intro as a fraction of the whole article

3 characters "  "   "    "         "

4 cite sources in body of article

5 see 'Help wanted' @ P&P Talk

6 from P&P Talk page> Plot Summary/ c-e & word-smithing: 1) major rewrite for readability, incld'g better syntax, x'ed redundancies and repetition of words; downsized paragraph; left details in link(s); 2) corrected events, sequences & word choices, all to report >>The Novel, >>Not the movie or tv drama!

Help Wanted> 1) Please: edit any 'plot summary' on basis of: >'report' the story, pls don't 'tell it' in your own words; >>ie, report 'what the author tells'. 2) Pls check my changes re these tests: >>that all reporting on this page should reflect the novel only, not the adaptions---and that narrative should not be reported here unless it can be reasonably identified in the author's novel.

For example, I cannot find in the novel where the author puts into Elizabeth's speech (or thoughts) the following: "Elizabeth, the heroine, has decided to marry only for love, even though she has no real ideas about how she will survive financially. She jokingly notes that her sister Jane, being kind and beautiful, may be responsible for finding a wealthy husband, thus providing for the female members of the family." ((NB: There are similar lines in the '05 movie, but that must not be conflated with the novel.)). >>If you know the chapter(s) where these explicit sentiments are found, please advise here.--Jbeans (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)>0830crrctd spelling--Jbeans (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)|| Plot Summary ('2nd half' of section;0904)> continued major rewrite for improved readability and 'less (=shorter) summary'; copy-edits generally as per '1st half'—described above; and particularly to track the narrative of the novel.--Jbeans (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

C-e (0907) Lede Section> 3 problems with the (replaced) lede-section sentence> (="It was begun in 1796, her second novel, but her first serious attempt at publication."): (1) it interprets the author's thinking—ie, .. 'her first serious attempt' at publication.(?)>(how do we know her mind about that?). >>We must not report internal thinking—unless we cite the reliable source that documents it; (2) besides, such interpretation is contradicted by the Wiki-narrative on the Jane Austen page; (3) different verb(s) are better for the second and third predicates; eg, 'was' (understood) seems to be implied, as: "..(it was) her second novel...", "..(it was) her first serious attempt...".

7 re ||Emma|| Excellent rewrite of Plot summaryThank you Anon...110; your rewrite greatly improves this article; an excellent example of reporting the story of the novel--rather than re-telling the story (while wool-gathering and repeating all the maximum details; reader be-damned.). Your economical and skilled writing reported the gist of the plot while cutting the verbiage word-count over ten percent. Welcome aboard and stay with us!--Jbeans (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2010

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW__@Aging Movement Control

FIXIT 110825-@Aging Movement Control-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Normal aging movement control in human is about the changes on the muscles, motor neurons, nerves, sensory functions, gait, fatigue, visual and manual responses, in men and women as they get older but who do not have neurological, muscular (atrophy, dystrophy...) or neuromuscular disorder. With aging, neuromuscular movements are impaired though with training or practice, some aspects may be prevented.

rNormal aging movement control in humans is about the deteriorative changes with aging in the body's systems of muscles, motor neurons, nerves, or sensory functions, or in the normal functionality of gait or of sensory (that is, visual, manual or fatigue) responses in men and women who do not have muscular atrophy or dystrophy or neurological or neuromuscular disorders. As a normal progression of the human life cycle neuromuscular movement deteriorates with aging, although some aspects of this impairment may be prevented or mitigated with training or exercise.//rrr

FIXIT 110825-@Aging Movement Control-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/////ENDFIXIT endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

FIXIT 111126-@BobbyBragan-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On August 16, 2005, Bragan came out of retirement to manage the independent Central League Fort Worth Cats for one game, making him—at 87 years, nine months, and 16 days old—the oldest manager in professional baseball annals (besting by one week Connie Mack, the manager and part-owner of the Philadelphia Athletics). Always known as an innovator with a sense of humor—and an umpire-baiter—Bragan was ejected in the third inning of his "comeback", thus also becoming the oldest person in any capacity to be ejected from a professional baseball game.

Bragan died on January 21, 2010 of a heart attack at his home in Fort Worth.

Career as player and field manager
During his baseball career, Bragan never skippered a game in the major leagues past his 49th birthday. He managed the Pittsburgh Pirates (1956–57), Cleveland Indians (1958), and Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves (1963–66), each time getting fired in the mid-season of his final campaign. In Cleveland, he lasted a total of only 67 games of his maiden season before his dismissal; at the time of his dismissal, his was the shortest stint for a Cleveland Indians manager. His career record in the major leagues was below .500: 443-478 (.481) and he was the first manager of the Braves when they relocated to Atlanta.

But Bragan was more successful as a minor league pilot and highly respected as a manager or coach—winning championships in 1948-49 at Fort Worth of the AA Texas League during a successful five-year run, and with the 1953 Hollywood Stars of the Open-Classification Pacific Coast League. (A photograph of Bragan lying at the feet of an umpire who had ejected him, still arguing, was published in LIFE Magazine at the time.) Bragan also was a major league coach for the Los Angeles Dodgers and Houston Colt .45s.

Bragan began his seven-year (1940–44; 1947–48) major league playing career as a shortstop for the Philadelphia Phillies, but by 1943, his first season with the Brooklyn Dodgers, he had learned how to catch and was for the most part a backup receiver for the Dodgers for the remainder of his MLB playing days. A right-handed batter, Bragan hit .240 in 597 games, with 15 career home runs.

Bragan was a protégé of Branch Rickey, the Hall of Fame front office executive, who hired him as an unproven young manager at Fort Worth when both were with Brooklyn and then brought Bragan to Hollywood and the Pittsburgh organization, where Rickey was general manager from 1951-55. Bragan started the 1948 season with Brooklyn, but Rickey wanted to bring up Roy Campanella from the minors. Rickey offered Bragan the managerial job with the Fort Worth Cats and he took over in July of ’48, remaining with the Cats for five years.

Ironically, Bragan had clashed with Rickey in 1947 over the Dodgers' breaking of the baseball color line after the major-league debut of Jackie Robinson. Bragan—the Dodgers' second-string catcher at the time—was one of a group of white players, largely from the American [[Southern United

FIXIT 111126-@BobbyBragan-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/////ENDFIXIT

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

FIXIT 110816-@The Tudor Dynasty-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[A]re @Rhys ap Gruffydd\/

=reStudioOne=

ABOUT THIS OLD TIME RADIO SHOW: All text on OTRCAT.com are ©2012 OTRCAT INC - All Rights Reserved. Reproduction is prohibited. Drama (1947 - 1948) Studio One is an excellent series turning short stories, novels, and plays into radio bliss. It was sadly cancelled after just one season due to what some believe was director Fletcher Markle's perfectionism and unwillingness to hire known actors and actresses. Markle wanted the stories to shine and not the stars.

It premiered on April __, 1947 with its adaption of Under the Volcano. LASTr:012912

When Sultan Mehmed II succeeded his father in early 1451, it was widely believed, or hoped, perhaps, that the young ruler, then 19 years old, would prove incapable—and that he would pose no great threat to Christian possessions in the Balkans and the Aegean. This optimism was reinforced by Mehmed's friendly assurances to envoys sent to his court at the beginning of his reign.

But Mehmed's actions soon belied his mild words. He proceeded, during the spring and summer of 1452, to build a second Ottoman fortress on the Bosphorus; this on the European side several miles north of Constantinople and set directly across the strait from the similar fortress Anadolu Hisarı—which his great grandfather Bayezid I had previously built on the Asian side. This fortress-pair gained for the Turks complete control of traffic on the Bosphorus; specifically, it prevented help from the north, the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast, from reaching Constantinople.

Mehmed's new fortress was named Rumeli Hisarı—Rumeli and Anadolu being the Turkish names of the European and Asian provinces of the Ottoman Empire, respectively; it was also known as Boğazkesen, of the dual meanings: strait-blocker or throat-cutter, emphasizing its strategic position. (The Greek name of the fortress, Laimokopia, also bears the same double meaning.) In October 1452, Mehmed ordered Turakhan Beg to lead a large force into the Peloponnese, to remain there and keep the despots Thomas and Demetrios from assisting their brother Constantine during his impending siege of Constantinople.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

When Sultan Mehmed II succeeded his father in early 1451, it was widely believed, or hoped, perhaps, that the young ruler, then 19 years old, would prove incapable—and that he would pose no great threat to Christian possessions in the Balkans and the Aegean. This optimism was reinforced by friendly assurances made by Mehmed to envoys sent to his new court.

But Mehmed's actions spoke louder than his mild words. Beginning early in 1452 he built a second Ottoman fortress on the Bosphorus; this on the European side several miles north of Constantinople, and set directly across the strait from the similar fortress Anadolu Hisarı—which his great grandfather Bayezid I had previously built on the Asian side. This fortress-pair gained for the Turks complete control of traffic on the Bosphorus; specifically, it prevented help from the north, the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast, from reaching Constantinople. Named Rumeli Hisarı, the new fortress was also known as Boğazkesen, which held the dual meanings: strait-blocker or throat-cutter, emphasizing its strategic position.

In October 1452, Mehmed ordered Turakhan Beg to lead a large force into the Peloponnese, to remain there and keep the despots Thomas and Demetrios from assisting their brother Constantine during his impending siege of Constantinople.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

AAAThe first expression refers to a particular builder, and assumes we know the builder referred to; it tells us about his "very fine" houses, then about his profits. It conveys its meaning by deploying three short intonation curves and a non-restrictive relative clause, marked by commas. BBBThe second expression refers not to a known builder but to any builder who meets a restricting qualification: the one explained by the restrictive relative clause. It conveys this alternative meaning by providing only one intonation curve plus the (qualifying) restrictive clause, but no commas (normally). Now the sentence states that any builder who builds "very fine" houses will make a large profit.

RAAAThe first expression refers to a particular builder, and implies we know the builder referred to; it tells us about his "very fine" houses, then about his profits. It conveys this meaning by deploying a non-restrictive relative clause and three short intonation curves, marked by commas. RBBBThe second expression refers not to a known builder but to any builder who meets a restricting qualification: the one explained by the restrictive relative clause. It conveys this (alternative) meaning by providing the restrictive clause and only one intonation curve, but no commas (normally). Now the sentence states that any builder who builds "very fine" houses will make a large profit.

R'AAAThe first expression refers to a particular builder and implies we know (or know of) the builder referred to; it tells us about his "very fine" houses, then about his profits. It conveys this meaning by deploying a non-restrictive relative clause and three short intonation curves, marked-off by commas. R'BBBThe second expression refers not to a known builder but to a certain type of builder who meets a certain qualification: the one explained by a restrictive relative clause. It conveys this (very different) meaning by providing the restrictive relative clause and only one intonation curve, but no commas (normally). Now the sentence means that it is the builder who builds "very fine" houses who will make a large profit.

Thus, when the basic meaning of an expression is changed by shifting between the restrictive or non-restrictive of a given relative clause, then the appropriate grammar must be applied in order to clearly indicate the desired meaning.

RR'AAAThe first expression refers to a particular builder and implies we know (or know of) the builder referred to; it tells us about the "very fine" houses he builds, then about his profits. It conveys this meaning by deploying a non-restrictive relative clause and three short intonation curves, marked-off by commas. RR'BBBThe second expression refers not to a known builder but to a type of builder who must meet a certain qualification: the one explained by a restrictive relative clause. It conveys this (very different) meaning by providing the restrictive relative clause and only one intonation curve, but no commas (normally). Now the sentence means that it is that builder who builds "very fine" houses who will make a large profit.

Thus, when the basic meaning of an expression is changed by shifting between a restrictive or non-restrictive clause, then an appropriate syntax must be chosen if it is desired to clearly indicate a restrictive vs. a non-restrictive meaning.

RRR'AAAThe first expression refers to certain builder and implies we know (or know of) the builder referred to; it tells us about the "very fine" houses he builds, then that he will make a large profit. It conveys this meaning by deploying a non-restrictive clause and three short intonation curves, marked-off by commas. RRR'BBBThe second expression refers not to a known builder but to a category of builder(s) who meets a particular qualification: the one explained by the restrictive clause. It conveys this (very different) meaning by providing the restrictive clause and only one intonation curve, but no commas (normally). Now the sentence means that it is that builder who builds "very fine" houses who will make a large profit.

Thus, if it is desired to clearly indicate a restrictive instead of a non-restrictive meaning, or vice-versa, then the appropriate syntax must be provided by choosing the appropriate relative clause and punctuation.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Crimes in Groveland
ref this ref \/: http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Reviews-Essays/Devil-in-the-Grove-Thurgood-Marshall-the-Groveland-Boys-and-the/ba-p/7301

In July 1949, four black men were accused of raping a white woman in Groveland, Florida and held in custody by law enforcement. Rumors accompanied the case, against a background of post-war tensions resulting from problems in absorbing veterans into jobs and American society. In Groveland, a white lynch mob of more than 400 demanded that the sheriff, Willis V. McCall, hand the prisoners over to them. (McCall claimed to have hidden the prisoners to protect them from the mob.) The mob left the jail and went on a race-riot rampage, burning buildings in the black part of town. Florida Governor Fuller Warren activated the Florida National Guard to restore order, which took six days.

Three of the four black men initially accused were arrested and charged. The fourth was killed by a police posse after escaping. Despite the lack of evidence against them, the three black males were found guilty by an all-white jury. The trial judge sentenced sixteen-year-old Charles Greenlee to prison; he sentenced Sam Shepherd and Walter Irvin to death.

Harry T. Moore organized a campaign against what he saw as the wrongful convictions of the three men. As Executive Director of the Florida NAACP, and with support of the national NAACP he pursued appeals of the case. In April 1951, a legal team headed by Thurgood Marshall won an appeal of Shepherd and Irvin's convictions before the U.S. Supreme Court; a new trial was scheduled.

Now, while transporting the prisoners, Sheriff McCall shot both handcuffed men, claiming they had attacked him in an attempt to escape. Shepherd died on the scene. Irvin survived and later claimed Sheriff McCall shot both him and Shepherd in cold blood. Moore called for an indictment of Sheriff McCall, and demanded that Florida Governor Fuller Warren suspend McCall from office.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Mehmed's new fortress was named Rumeli Hisarı—Rumeli and Anadolu being the Turkish names of the European and Asian provinces of the Ottoman Empire, respectively; it was also known as Boğazkesen, of the dual meanings: strait-blocker or throat-cutter, emphasizing its strategic position. (The Greek name of the fortress, Laimokopia, also bears the same double meaning.) In October 1452, Mehmed ordered Turakhan Beg to lead a large force into the Peloponnese, to remain there and keep the despots Thomas and Demetrios from assisting their brother Constantine during his impending siege of Constantinople.

_______________________________start

Thus Madison held that each state would maintain its sovereignty under the will of its (separate) people—and not that of the people of the entire United States. He developed this argument in his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, in January 1800. At that time—the beginning of the presidential-election year—he published that the "whole People" of each state were its "supreme rulers as separate nations"; and, as such, they held the sovereign powers of nullification, interposition and secession, as they deemed fit. Here he also made emphatic argument dismissing the idea—advanced by the Federalist Party—that the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the authority to decide issues arising between the states, and those between the states and the federal government, to wit;

"It appears ... to be a plain principle, [that where there is] no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, ... [of] whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. ... [Regarding] the states, then, ... there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide whether the compact made by them be violated; ....

However true therefore, it may be that the judicial department is ... to decide in the last resort, ... [this must be] in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, [emphasis added] ... . On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever ... the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."

Hence, by 1800, Madison held that secession was solely at the discretion of a state's People, who were in fact the state's ruling sovereigns; and that there was "no higher tribunal"—including the Supreme Court—than a state's People to determine its individual policies for nullifying federal laws, or for seceding from the federal Union entirely.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Natural right of revolution versus right of secession
Debates on the legality of secession often looked back to the example of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Law professor Daniel Farber defined what he considered to be the borders of this debate:

"What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements about the permanence or impermanence of the Union. The occasional reference to the impermanency of the Constitution are hard to interpret.  They might have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification.  But they equally could have referred to an extraconstitutional right of revolution, or to the possibility that a new national convention would rewrite the Constitution, or simply to the factual possibility that the national government might break down.  Similarly, references to the permanency of the Union could have referred to the practical unlikelihood of withdrawal rather than any lack of legal power.  The public debates seemingly do not speak specifically to whether ratification under Article VII was revocable."

In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

?????/Here Madison directly contradicts his adamant and repeated statements for __________ (see above), at the Philadelphia Convention and the Virginia Assembly ______supporting it.

During the crisis, President Andrew Jackson, published his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, which made the case for the perpetuity of the Union and compared the differences between "revolution" and "secession":

"But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure [emphasis added]."

?????/However in his arguments, Jackson also directly contradicted American history, claiming that the states originally withdrew from Great Britain as a single sovereign state-- rather than thirteen.

Research>>>>--Buchanan article////last speech to Congress re secession//////

In the midst of the secession crisis that would lead to the Civil War, President James Buchanan in his final State of the Union?______ speech before Congress acknowledged his view that the South, "after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union"; but he also reiterated the difference between "revolution" and "secession":

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties [emphasis added]. If this be so, the Confederacy [itself] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

scscscscscscscsc

===South Carolina: from Andrew Jackson to secession

On May 1, 1833, soon after out-maneuvering John C. Calhoun and other South Carolina leaders of the nullification movement President Andrew Jackson wrote of these men who advocated nullifying federal law (the Tariff of 1828) by the state of South Carolina:

""the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.""

Thus did Jackson predict South Carolina's actions pursuing its course away from the Union that eventually ignited the American Civil War nearly three decades later. He felt there were those politicians, situated primarily in the south, who were bound and determined to disrupt the Union and to compete as a separate nation for control of western expansion.<><>

Indeed, in 1850 South Carolina threatened to secede over admitting California to the Union as a 'free' state where slavery was prohibited.<><> On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to unilaterally secede from the Union.

But, slavery was no pretext, according to the leaders of secession in South Carolain. In providing a public defense for their actions they published the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, which documented their claim that slavery was the cause of South Carolina's secession. The Declaration asserts that the governments of the United States and other states in the Union had failed their obligations to South Carolina regarding slavery. Three specific issues cited were: clauses in the U. S. Constitution protecting slavery; the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act; and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery. Collaterally, it noted that while these problems have existed for twenty-five years, the situation was recently made unacceptable by the election of a president (i.e., Abraham Lincoln) who was ready to outlaw slavery.

@@@South Carolina's attachment to the tactic of nullification began in the 1820s. (At that time it was merely coicident with Jackson's rise in national politics, but a future clash between the two views of the Union ____).

@@@Notes: 1  .."insiders"; p. 52.

2  .."absurd and wicked doctrines..." p58

3  .."a bellief in the primacy of the will of the people over..." p46

4  As articulated in the Fort Hill address... p184

5  Nullification was a means of power that Calhoun wfas drawn to... p186

@@@Jackson's prediction also reflected his prejudice that the leader 'elites'/"insiders" of South Carolina /and of other individual states/ were largely concerned to achieve their interests—i.e., those of the few, their fellow elites—rather than those of 'the people', i.e., the welfare of the common people of South Carolina and of the United States, whom Jackson championed.<>source<>

RVVVVVS During the presidential term of Andrew Jackson, South Carolina had its own semi-secession movement due to the 1828 "Tariffs of Abomination" which threatened both South Carolina's economy and the Union. Andrew Jackson also threatened to send federal troops to put down the movement and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree in South Carolina. Also due to this, Jackson's vice president, John C. Calhoun, who supported the movement and wrote the essay "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest", became the first US vice-president to resign.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

During the presidential term of Andrew Jackson, South Carolina had its own semi-secession movement due to the 1828 "Tariffs of Abomination" which threatened both South Carolina's economy and the Union. Andrew Jackson also threatened to send federal troops to put down the movement and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree in South Carolina. Also due to this, Jackson's vice president, John C. Calhoun, who supported the movement and wrote the essay "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest", became the first US vice-president to resign. On May 1, 1833, Jackson wrote of nullification, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." South Carolina also threatened to secede in 1850 over the issue of California's statehood. It became the first state to declare its secession from the Union on December 20, 1860, with the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and later joined with the other southern states in the Confederacy. OOOOO--OOOOOOOOOO

xxxxxxx Synopsis

The opening portion of the declaration outlines the historical background of South Carolina and offers a legal justification for its secession. It asserts that the right of states to secede is implicit in the Constitution and this right was explicitly reaffirmed by South Carolina in 1852. The declaration states that the agreement between South Carolina and the United States is subject to the law of compact, which creates obligations on both parties and which revokes the agreement if either party fails to uphold its obligations.

The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the US Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.

The next section states that while these problems have existed for twenty-five years, the situation had recently become unacceptable due to the election of a President (this was Abraham Lincoln although he is not mentioned by name) who was planning to outlaw slavery.

The final section concludes with a statement that South Carolina had therefore seceded from the United States.

Analysis

While later claims have been made that the decision to secede was prompted by other issues such as tariffs, these issues were not mentioned in the declaration. The primary focus of the declaration is the perceived violation of the Constitution by northern states in not extraditing escaped slaves (as the Constitution required in Article IV Section 2) and actively working to abolish slavery (which they saw as Constitutionally guaranteed and protected). The main thrust of the argument was that since the Constitution, being a contract, had been violated by some parties (the northern abolitionist states), the other parties (the southern slave-holding states) were no longer bound by it. zzzzzzz scscscscscscscscEND

=Children of Rhys ap Gruffydd= CURRhys had at least nine sons and eight daughters. Confusingly, three of the sons were named Maredudd and two of the daughters were named Gwenllian. Gruffydd ap Rhys II (died 1201) was the eldest legitimate son and was nominated by Rhys as his successor. He married Matilda de Braose, the daughter of Maud de Braose. Maelgwn ap Rhys (died 1231), who was the eldest son but illegitimate, refused to accept Gruffydd as his father's successor. A bitter feud developed between the two, with several of Rhys's other sons becoming involved. Rhys Gryg (died 1233) married a daughter of the Earl of Clare. Rhys eventually became the main power in Deheubarth, but never ruled more than a portion of his father's realm and was a client prince of Llywelyn the Great of Gwynedd.

Hywel ap Rhys (died 1231) spent many years as a hostage at the court of Henry II and on his return became known as Hywel Sais (Hywel the Saxon, i.e. Englishman). Maredudd ap Rhys (died 1239) was also given as a hostage, but was less fortunate than Hywel. He was blinded by King Henry after the failure of the invasion of Wales in 1165, and became known as Maredudd Ddall (Maredudd the Blind). He ended his days as a monk at Whitland Abbey. Another Maredudd (died 1227) became Archdeacon of Cardigan.

His daughter Gwenllian ferch Rhys married Rhodri ab Owain, prince of the western part of Gwynedd. Another Gwenllian (died 1236) married Ednyfed Fychan, seneschal of Gwynedd under Llywelyn the Great, and through her Rhys became an ancestor of the Tudor dynasty. Through the Tudors inter-marrying with the House of Stuart Rhys is an ancestor to the current ruling house of the United Kingdom and also an ancestor of several ruling houses in Europe. When Henry Tudor landed in Pembrokeshire, Wales in 1485 to make a bid for the throne, his descent from Rhys was one of the factors which enabled him to attract Welsh support (Henry flew a (Welsh) dragon banner at the battle of Bosworth Field). Angharad ferch Rhys married William FitzMartin, lord of Cemais. Other daughters married the Welsh rulers of Gwrtheyrnion and Elfael. endCURR

RRRLord Rhys ap Gruffydd had at least nine sons and eight daughters. Confusingly, three ///of the\\\ sons were named Maredudd and two ///of the\\\ daughters were named Gwenllian. Gruffydd ap (son of) Rhys II (died 1201) was the eldest legitimate son and was nominated by Rhys as his successor. He married Matilda de Braose, the daughter of Maud de Braose. Maelgwn ap Rhys (died 1231), who was the eldest son but illegitimate, refused to accept Gruffydd as his father's successor. A bitter feud developed between the two, with several of Rhys's other sons becoming involved. Rhys Gryg (died 1233) married a daughter of the Earl of Clare. Gruffydd ap Rhys II eventually became the main power in Deheubarth, but never ruled more than a portion of his father's realm and was a client prince of Llywelyn the Great of Gwynedd. |||///His\\\Lord Rhy's older daughter Gwenllian ferch (daughter of) Rhys married Rhodri ab Owain, prince of the western part of Gwynedd.

Hywel ap Rhys (died 1231) spent many years as a hostage at the court of Henry II and on his return became known as Hywel Sais (Hywel the Saxon, i.e. Englishman). Maredudd ap Rhys (died 1239) was also given as a hostage, but was less fortunate than Hywel. He was blinded by King Henry after the failure of the invasion of Wales in 1165, and became known as Maredudd Ddall (Maredudd the Blind). He ended his days as a monk at Whitland Abbey. Another Maredudd (died 1227) became Archdeacon of Cardigan.

///His\\\ Rhys's second daughter Gwenllian (died 1236) married Ednyfed Fychan, seneschal of Gwynedd under Llywelyn the Great. It was through this union that ///and through her\\\ Henry Tudor claimed his line of ancestry---albeit non-patrilineal---to Rhys ap Gruffydd to buttress his bid for the English throne. ///became an ancestor of the Tudor dynasty.\\\ When he landed in Pembrokeshire in 1485 ///to make a bid for the throne, his\\\ Henry's claim of descent from Lord Rhys  proved a key factor///one of the factors which\\\ enabling him to attract the support of the Welsh. (Henry flew a (Welsh) dragon banner at the battle of Bosworth Field). ??Through the Tudors inter-marrying with the House of Stuart Rhys is an ancestor to the current ruling house of the United Kingdom and also an ancestor of several ruling houses in Europe.??

Angharad ferch Rhys married William FitzMartin, lord of Cemais. Other daughters married the Welsh rulers of Gwrtheyrnion and Elfael. endRRR

end[A]@Rhys ap Gruffydd/endxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

FIXIT 110816-@The Tudor Dynasty-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/////ENDFIXIT

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

&re 'Mining Town' Patricia Hart >>>http://www.librarything.com/work/1239618

&re 'Nothing Daunted: The Unexpected Education of Two Society Girls in the West' Dorothy Wickenden >>>http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/non-fiction/dorothy-wickenden/nothing-daunted/

FIXIT 110615-@The North Star Mine-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/////ENDFIXIT

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

FIXIT 110616-@The North Star Mine Powerhouse-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The North Star Mine Powerhouse is located at the North Star Mine in Grass Valley, California, USA.

xxx It was added to the site in 18__ when xxx When the ///mining operations expanded subsequent to the California Gold Rush. xxx, the powerhouse was added.xxx In 1895, it became the site of the largest tangential water wheel in the world.[1] Situated by Wolf Creek, a mile west of the Empire Mine, the powerhouse is a designated California Historical Landmark, and has been turned into the North Star Mine and Powerhouse & Pelton Wheel Museum.

Contents [hide] [edit] HistoryIn 1878, Lester Pelton of Camptonville brought a strange machine to the Miners Foundry in nearby Nevada City. The Pelton wheel, about the size of a XXX modern XXX car tire and referred to as "Wheel One", was put on display for mine owners. It used cups on a wheel to draw water and harness power.[1] Running out of trees to burn, the North Star decided to switch to hydraulic power, andXXX mining engineer XXX Arthur De Wint Foote designed the 30-foot (9.1 m) wheel XXX that XXX which drove four new compressors that delivered 90 pounds (41 kg) of air pressure for 2,000 feet (610 m) to the mine's central shaft.[1] For his ingenuity, Foote was made the North Star's superintendent.

The powerhouse is now a museum. The New Verde Mining Company donated an acre of land and the remains of the old power house. The wheel was saved from the scrap heap by a Grass Valley resident who raised $2,000 to purchase the wheel and donated it to the Historical Society.[2]

FIXIT 110616-@The North Star Mine Powerhouse-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/////ENDFIXIT

endWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

beginWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Overview
Mary Hallock was born November 9, 1847, in Milton, New York, of English Quaker ancestry. A singular girl and youth, she attended the Female Collegiate Seminary in Poughkeepsie, New York, then studied art in New York City at the new Cooper Institute School of Design for Women. By her early twenties she had become established in New York City as an accomplished artist-illustrator for notable publishers there.

In 1876 Hallock married a young mining engineer, Arthur De Wint Foote, then moved cross-continent to live with him at the New Almaden mine near San Jose, California. Subsequently, as Authur pursued his engineering career, she followed him throughout the West; to Leadville, Colorado, to Deadwood, South Dakota, then to Boise, Idaho, where Arthur originated a major irrigation project on the Boise River; then to Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico, and finally to Grass Valley, California, where Arthur advanced to managing the the North Star mine, and retired there.

Arthur and Mary Foote were married nearly sixty years. In the early years of their marriage she gave birth to three children; a son, Arthur Burling Foote, and two daughters, Betty and Agnes.

Career
After departing her beloved East with great reluctance, Mary Hallock Foote found herself inspired by the "real West" country and the varying peoples she encountered there. She soon was drawing it, and writing and telling about it. Recording her travels, Foote wrote stories for 'back-East' readers as a correspondent to The Century Magazine and other periodicals, illustrating them with woodcuts and drawings. She is best known for her stories of place, in which she portrayed the rough, picturesque life she experienced and observed in the old West, especially that in the early mining towns. She wrote several novels, and illustrated stories and novels by other authors for various publishers. Her letters provide a biography of her husband as well as her autobiography; they were collected by Rodman Paul, who published them in 1972 as the memoir A Victorian Gentlewoman in the Far West.

Death and legacy
Mary Hallock Foote died June 25, 1938, at age 90. Her legacy in American history is as a stalwart of the American Old West and a teller of it's stories. Her work—the numerous stories for books and periodicals, with her drawings and woodcut illustrations; the correspondence from western outposts; her novels and nonfiction; all—gained her notice as a skilled observer of the frontier and an accomplished writer. Her life epressed the civilizing influence of the educated eastern gentlewoman on life in the chaotic mining and 'ditch' camps of the early American West and, conversely, the stimulating effect of those (old West) environs on the prepared mind, i.e., one educated for illustrating and telling the story. (NB: 'ditch' camps are irrigation-project construction camps.)

Controversy
Wallace Stegner's novel Angle of Repose (Pulitzer Prize, 1971) is based directly upon Mary Hallock Foote's extensive personal correspondence. Stegner used the outline of her life with permission from members of Foote's family—on proviso that he disguise the source; which, in his judgement, he did. After publication, however, some descendants objected to "the great liberties" taken by Stegner in using Foote's story. On the opposite hand—in disguising his source—Stegner used passages taken directly from Foote's letters without providing specific credit; this resulted in controversy that still today haunts his reputation within the literary community.

Andrew Imbrie wrote an opera based upon Stegner's novel, which was performed in San Francisco in 1976. A collection of prints by Foote is on permanent exhibit at the Boise Public Library.

FORtheRECORD/0715---this-is-the-exactEDIT/as posted>> @ViewHistory "0715/Bold Rewrite Offered" ---END-FORtheRECORD||

FORtheRECORD/0715 ---@DiscussionPage, re ABOVE edit; as posted 0n 0715;

>>>>BEGIN>>

0715/Bold Rewrite Offered---Please post your responses/concerns below. >>In addition to major copy-editing, more sourcing, and repaired errata ---pls note these changes>> 1) The linked husband article provides content about Mary  --->which now is moved here;  2) I emphasize Mary's identity and activities vis-a-vis those of her husband or other entities; ---re such, the Pelton wheel factoid has been moved to the husband article; 3) Their marriage year is added  --->1876; one source differs, but the husband interview (see Rickard source) must be authoritative; 5) Some links are de-linked  --->in my ne're ending struggle to smash auto-linking. (Pls note> generally & where appropriate, I prefer--and offer here--the active voice, and action verbs, vs. the other kinds.)--Jbeans (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

FORtheRECORD/0715 ---@DiscussionPage, re ABOVE edit; as posted 0n 0715;

---END-FORtheRECORD||

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

=Lester Allan Pelton=

FORtheRECORD/0815---this-is-the-exactEDIT/as posted>> @ViewHistory "0815/Bold Rewrite Offered"

>>>>BEGIN-FORtheRECORD>>

Lester Allan Pelton (September 5, 1829 – March 14, 1908) was an American inventor who contibuted significantly to the development of hydropower and hydroelectric power in the old West and world-wide. In the 1870's he invented the Pelton water wheel, then the most efficient design of the impulse water turbine. Recognized as one of the fathers of hydroelectric power, he was awarded the Elliott Cresson Medal during his lifetime and recently was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame.

Early life and youth
Lester Allan Pelton was born in Vermilion, Ohio on September 5, 1829. His grandfather, Captain Josiah S. Pelton, who retired after a successful career at sea, had established his family and descendants prominently in the area. Lester's father was Allen Pelton, Josiah's youngest son; his mother was Fanny Cuddeback, she of another locally prominent family. As a youngster Lester worked on the Pelton family farm and attended the Cuddeback School.

In 1850, young Pelton joined a local party of males and emigrated from Ohio to participate in the California gold rush. But he was not successful as a miner, and for a time he fished the Sacramento River and sold his catch locally; and he worked in woodmilling and carpentry. In 1860, after the gold strikes in the nearby//ERRcor>// Sierra Nevada he relocated to Camptonville—near the Yuba River and the California Mother Lode country—where he made his living as a millwright and carpenter. Pelton spent much of his time reading and observing mining activity; his work and studies gained him critical knowledge of mining equipment and processes and related engineering principles.

Inventing the Pelton wheel


Pelton's ideas for improving the turbine water wheel came from his studies of mining equiment and operations in California's gold rush country. Following are summary descriptions of the local technology observed by Pelton, and of the science by which the Pelton wheel extracts kinetic energy from a coursing mountain stream:

Steam-heat powered much of local mining activities but required a lot of wood for fuel; nearby forests were routinely decimated. Turbine water wheels also were used to supply power, but these were inefficient in converting the kinetic energy of mountain streams to horsepower. //ERRcor>//Further, D.P. Stern reports: "According to a 1939 article by W. F. Durand of Stanford University in Mechanical Engineering, Pelton's invention started from an accidental observation some time in the 1870s. Pelton was watching a spinning water turbine when the key holding its wheel onto its shaft slipped, causing it to become misaligned. Instead of the jet hitting the cups in their middle, the slippage made it hit near the edge; rather than the water flow being stopped, it was now deflected into a half-circle, coming out again with reversed direction. Surprisingly, the turbine now moved faster... ..That was Pelton's great discovery. In other turbines the jet hit the middle of the cup and the splash of the impacting water wasted energy."

Experimenting and modelling, Pelton improved upon the efficiency of the Knight wheel (developed earlier by the Knight Foundry at nearby Sutter Creek). The Knight wheel received the streamflow jet slightly off-center and at an angle into a single turbine cup. Alternatively, the Pelton wheel—by deploying a split double cup (in effect two cups side-by-side), then splitting the impinging water-jet directly onto the common vane of the double cup—captured a stream's kinetic energy more efficiently. There were two prime results of Pelton's design: it consolidatd the introduction of a new physical science into the ancient human quest to develop hydropower, i.e., the science of the impulse turbine as opposed to the reaction turbine; and it revolutionized the use of turbines adapted for high head (i.e., high energy) sites. Before Pelton, almost all water turbines were reaction machines powered by water pressure, while Pelton's wheel was powered by the kinetic energy of a high velocity water-jet which could be conveniently developed from a small mountain stream.

(The Pelton design can be approximated by cupping both hands upward then bringing them together, aligning the fingernails 'back-to-back' to represent the splitter vane between the cupped hands. The split double cup, also called the split bucket, may be seen here; or here—showing the original Pelton model at the original site of manufacture, Miners Foundry - Allans (sic) Machine Shop, Nevada City, California. )

Building the Pelton wheel
In the late 1870s Pelton modeled, tested and manufactured his first turbine wheel—dubbed the Pelton Runner—at the Miners Foundry in Nevada City, California. In 1878, at the Mayflower Mine in Nevada City, he installed the first operational Pelton wheel. At that time the Knight Foundry wheel was being sold as the industry standard, but in a head-to-head competition staged in 1883 at the Idaho Mine in nearby Grass Valley, Pelton's design proved much more efficient. The Pelton design provided 90 percent efficiency (of converting streamflow kinetic energy to horsepower) while the next best competitor achieved less than 77 percent—at a time when most extant water wheels typically rated less than 40 percent. The Pelton wheel also provided sustained power during normal lowflow conditions in a mountain stream. In 1887 a miner attached Pelton's wheel to a dynamo and produced the first hydroelectric power in the Sierra Nevada.

Pelton patented his wheel as well as his novel design of the double cup, and in 1888 formed the Pelton Water Wheel Company in San Francisco to supply the growing demand for hydropower and hydroelectricity throughout the West and world-wide. 'Pelton' is a trademark name for the products of that company, but the term is widely used generically for similar impulse turbines.

Death, legacy and awards
Pelton died in California on March 14, 1908, at age 78; he was buried at his family site in Vermilion, Ohio. His Pelton Runner design is still used today to produce hydroelectric power in the United States and around the world. Later designs such as the Turgo turbine, first patented in 1919, and the Banki turbine were inspired by the Pelton wheel.

In 1895 The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, US, awarded Lester Pelton the Elliott Cresson Medal—now renamed the Benjamin Franklin Medal—for his accomplishments of invention in technology. Pelton was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2006. There are memorials and monuments celebrating Pelton and the Pelton Runner mounted in Camptonville, California, in the Miners Foundry in Nevada City, California, and at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C., among other sites.

Early years
Foote was born in 1849 in Guilford, Connecticut; his ancestry was English—from Yorkshire before 1630. After preparatory schooling as a youth, he attended Yale College's Sheffield Scientific School, but left in 1868 before graduating. From there he began his early career in business and construction ventures along the eastern seaboard of the US and in the West Indies basin.

Career
Immersing himself in learning the civil engineering practicum, with application in mining operations, young Arthur Foote became an exemplar of the motto "Go West, young man"; he aspired to making his career and fortune in the 'new' West.

In 1873, he landed in San Francisco, seeking work. In quick sucession he worked on the Sutro Tunnel site in Virginia City, Nevada—where he assisted with installing the first industrial air compressor in a tunnel or mine in the US West; then on the Eldorado Canal of the American River, which supplied water to new hydraulic mines near Placerville, California. And, in 1874, working for the Southern Pacific Railroad, he assisted the chief engineer building the Tehachapi Loop, the celebrated climbing railway spiral—and now a popular railfan site and National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark.

In 1876, while posted at the New Almaden Quicksilver Mine in Santa Clara County, California, young Foote returned East to marry and to bring his bride, Mary Hallock Foote, back to California. Soon he moved his family to Deadwood, South Dakota, where he helped supervise the Homestake Mine; then to Leadville, Colorado, during the Colorado Silver Boom. There he served as a (litigation) mining expert for the Iron Silver Mining Company. Later he supervised the Adelaide Mine and other small mines near Leadville.

Abandoning the high altitudes for health reasons, Foote journeyed to Morelia in Michoacan, Mexico, to prospect a retired silver mine; then to Wood River Valley in south-central Idaho—locale of today's Sun Valley ski resort—to open the Wolftone Mine prospect. Later, he formed a partnership venture and bought water rights on the Boise River where he designed the Boise River irrigation project, then developed it for ten years before it eventually failed for lack of capital. (Ultimately it was completed by the federal government, i.e., the US Bureau of Reclamation, as the Arrowrock Dam project, then the largest arid-lands irrigation scheme in the United States.) After Boise, Foote served as a hydrologist for the newly created US Geological Survey, leading field surveys that documented the hydrology and hydraulics of reaches of the Snake River and Snake River Plain and valley. He returned briefly to Mexico to engineer roads in Baja California for an onyx mine; then 'made home' again to California to manage the Fremont Mine in Amador City, located just east of Sacramento.

Grass Valley, California
In 1895, Foote settled his family in Grass Valley, California—some 50 miles west of Lake Tahoe—where he was hired to design an electric-generating plant for the North Star Mine, the second largest gold producing mine in California. After studying the site he judged that electric power was neither safe nor dependable for operating the underground works there; instead he conceived a master plan for using air compressors to operate the mine—and using hydro-impulse turbines to power the compressors.

Now he envisioned a power plant housing an over-sized Pelton water wheel—the recently invented hydro-powered impulse turbine. At 30 feet diameter he designed and erected a drum wheel more than sixty per cent larger than the maximum recommended by the Pelton Water Wheel Company in San Francisco. Upon completion, 'Foote's Pelton wheel' performed successfully as the world's largest operating impulse turbine wheel; it was in continuous use for over 30 years. In 1991 Foote's North Star Mine Powerhouse was designated an International Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark.

Foote advanced to superintendent and later to general manager of the North Star Mine. Then he and his wife commissioned the design of North Star House by the architect Julia Morgan. The grand residence was built in 1905 in Grass Valley. Also known as Foote Mansion, the house is notable for its iconic 'western' elegance, and for its association with the careers of three singular 'westerners': the engineer-miner-entrepreneur Arthur Foote, his wife the author-illustrator Mary Hallock Foote, and the master architect Morgan. Later, the author Wallace Stegner made Foote Mansion the setting for his Pulitzer Prize winning novel Angle of Repose (1972), which closely referenced the lives of the Footes.

Members of the Foote family occupied the North Star House as home until 1968. The House is listed on national and state registers of historic places; and the landscape-site, including gardens and orchard, has been designated as a local historic landmark.

While at North Star Mine in 1911, Foote and several partners purchased the Tightner Mine in Alleghany, California. Now Foote designed and constructed a high bridge over the Middle Yuba River and a 22-mile high grade mountain road connecting the two mines. Subsequently, the project—comprised of the Foote's Crossing Road and the Foote's Crossing Road high bridge—was memorialized as a National Register of Historic Places landmark and as a California Point of Historical Interest(No. P401).

Arthur and Mary Foote served ambassadorial roles of representing the 'new' West and the lifestyles to be had there. They frequently received dignitaries and celebrities touring the West and hosted them for extended stays at North Star House; they hosted community and civic events there. He contributed technical papers to professional societies and published scholarly articles addressing public issues, especially re developing the West. He advocated high standards of literacy, both professional and personal, for engineers.

Personal life and controversy
In 1876, Foote married the illustrator and writer Mary Hallock Foote (1847–1938) in her hometown of Milton, Ulster County, New York. Their marriage produced a son, Arthur Burling Foote, who followed closely after his father's career footsteps, and two daughters Agnes and Betty. Arthur Foote's biography was written by his wife within her memoirs—which were collected by Rodman Paul and published in 1972 as A Victorian Gentlewoman in the Far West. (In her own right Mary Hallock Foote was an important literary and pioneer figure in the history of the old West, as may be seen here).

In creating his Pulitzer Prize winning novel Angle of Repose(1972), the twentieth century novelist Wallace Stegner appropriated—with permission—portions of Arthur and Mary Foote's life stories from her memoirs (noted above). Stegner used passages taken directly from Mary Foote's actual letters and recast them as fictionalized correspondence of the novel's main character; his choices resulted in controversy within the literary community that continues today.

Early life
Douglas Day was born in Colón, Panama. The son of a US Navy offficer, he served as a fighter pilot in the US Marine Corps in the early 1950s. He took three degrees at the University of Virginia before joining the English faculty there in 1962.[1]

Career
Day taught at the University of Virginia for 38 years; he was an early advocate of studying contemporary Hispanic and Latin American writers and literature. His study of the poetry of Robert Graves, his first book of literary criticism, won the Phi Beta Kappa Prize for scholarly writing in 1963. Fluent in Spanish, he also edited a collection of plays by Federico Garcia Lorca.

Documenting the life of English novelist Malcolm Lowry won for Day the National Book Award for biography in 1974; his Malcolm Lowry: A Biography (1973) depicts the turbulent life of the alcoholic author of Under the Volcano. Previously, with Lowry's widow Margerie, he had edited the novelist's posthumous collection Dark as the Grave Wherein My Friend is Laid (1969). In 1973 he edited a 'restored' and definitive version of William Faulkner's Flags in the Dust, which was originally published in truncated form as Sartoris).

Other books by Douglas Day include Swifter than Reason: The Poetry and Criticism of Robert Graves (1963) and two novels: Journey of the Wolf (1977)— for which he received the Rosenthal Award for Fiction from the American Academy of Arts and Letters; and The Prison Notebooks of Ricardo Flores Magon (1991).

References and related reading
[1] Bromley, Anne. "The Adventure Ends for Writer and English Professor Douglas Day." Inside UVA Online. Oct 29-Nov 11 2004.

Sullivan, Patricia. "Douglas T. Day III; Writer, Educator." The Washington Post, 16 October 2004.

Fox, Margalit. "Douglas Day, 72, Malcolm Lowry Biographer is Dead." New York Times, 19 October 2004.

Path to publication
In 1940 Lowry hired an agent to find a publisher for his new novel; but the manuscript was broadly rejected and he was obliged to revise the work extensively. In 1944, the revised manuscript was nearly destroyed in a fire at the author's beach shack in North Vancouver, British Columbia. His wife Margerie rescued the unfinished novel, but many other works-in-progress were lost.

`x4Lowry completed the revised novel in 1945 and sent it to several publishers. While travelling in Mexico he learned it was accepted by two publishers: Reynal & Hitchcock in the United States and Jonathan Cape in the United Kingdom; and Cape had reservations. He wrote Lowry, requesting more revisions and drastic cuts. The author's lengthy reply, dated 2 January 1946, gave a passionate defense of the book. Lowry sensed he had created a work of lasting importance: "Whether it sells or not seems to me either way a risk. But there is something about the destiny of the creation of the book that seems to tell me it just might go on selling a very long time." In this same letter he provided a detailed summary of the book's key themes and explained how he intended each of the 12 chapters to work. This (author's) explication has been printed in several editions.

`x5Several editions of the 1947 novel have been published. In 1994 the original manuscript was published as: The 1940 Under the Volcano.

xxxFollowing critical reports from readers,

Characters
Geoffrey Firmin is a British consul, appointed to live and serve in the Mexican provincial town Quauhnahuac (the Aztec name for extant Cuernavaca). Actually, he is an ex-consul, having recently resigned due to diplomatic strains between the UK and Mexico in the aftermath of President Lázaro Cárdenas's 1938 nationalization of the country's oil reserves. 'The Consul' wants to write, but his alcoholism degrades this and most areas of his life, including that shared with his ex-wife Yvonne, who has returned to Mexico after a long absence in hopes of rekindling their relationship. Hugh Firmin, Geoffrey's journalist half-brother, visits Mexico to report on local fascist activity for the London Globe; he feels guilt for not having volunteered to fight for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War--or at least to go there and report the war from the Republican side. There are allusions to an earlier affair between Hugh and Yvonne, adding to the tension between the three main protagonists. Monsieur Luruelle is Geoffrey's friend since their childhood days; ________ ........

Structure
While the story is simple, the manner of its telling decidedly is not: Lowry's style is dense, symbolic, and allusive. His prose is thick with resonance and descriptive color; and his story structure is complex, disclosing flashbacks, abrupt shifts, and stream of consciousness narrative, with only gradual accumulation of essential__ information. The book is often cited as requiring reading and then re-reading, as its patterns and subtleties reveal themselves slowly; and as the author himself was quoted: "-".[]

Filmsxxx/ Adaptions, reviews and honors
Studio One, in its original incarnation as a radio series, adapted the story to radio drama for its series premiere broadcast in April,1947; it was directed by Fletcher Markle, the avant garde Canadian ____. John Huston directed the 1984 film adaptation, Under the Volcano, with Albert Finney, Jacqueline Bisset, Anthony Andrews and Katy Jurado. It received Oscar nominations for Best Actor (Albert Finney) and Best Music, Original Score.

`x6In 1976, the documentary Volcano: An Inquiry Into the Life and Death of Malcolm Lowry was produced by Donald Brittain and Robert A. Duncan, and the National Film Board of Canada; it was directed by Brittain and John Kramer. It opens on scenes of the inquest (in England) into Malcolm Lowry's "death by misadventure", then moves back in time to trace the writer's life and the development of the novel. Selections from the novel are read by Richard Burton amid images shot in Mexico, the United States, Canada and England.

`x1In 1998 the publishing house Modern Library announced its list of the "100 Best Novels of the 20th Century" which included Under the Volcano. In ____, TIME magazine counted the novel in its list of "100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present"—1923 being the year Time was first published.

Quotations

 * ¿Le gusta este jardín, que es suyo? ¡Evite que sus hijos lo destruyan! (Do you like this garden, which is yours? Make sure your children don't destroy it!)
 * No se puede vivir sin amar (One cannot live without loving.)
 * "Salud y pesetas." "Y tiempo para gastarlas." (Health and money. And the time to spend them.)

Music
Bob Dylan's song "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" alludes to the novel. YEAR?

The novel inspired the 1974 song "The Consul at Sunset" by Jack Bruce of Cream, (lyrics by Pete Brown).

It also inspired the song "Back Room Of The Bar" by the Young Fresh Fellows, from their 1987 album The Men Who Loved Music.

Matthew Good, a Canadian musician, makes reference to Malcolm Lowry and Under the Volcano in his live album release Live at Massey Hall in the introduction to his song "I'm a Window".YEAR?

The Bears produced a song called "Under The Volcano".YEAR?

In 1994 Diafana Krina (Διάφανα Κρίνα, trans. Transparent Lillies), a former Greek band, wrote the song "Under the Volcano" on the band's first single, "Melting Alone/Under the Volcano".

References and related reading

 * Grace, Sherrill. (2009). Strange Comfort: Essays on the Work of Malcolm Lowry. Talonbooks: Vancouver: BC. ISBN 978-0-88922-618-0.

Path to publication
In 1940, Lowry hired an agent, Harold Matson, to find a publisher for the manuscript, but it was rejected many times. Although he continued refining it for years, this original 1940 version was later published in 1994 under the title The 1940 Under the Volcano.

In 1944, the manuscript was nearly lost in a fire at Lowry's shack in British Columbia. His second wife, Margerie, rescued the unfinished novel, but all of Lowry's other works in progress were lost in the blaze.

The novel as it is recognized today was finally finished in 1945 and immediately sent to many publishers. In late winter, while travelling in Mexico, Lowry learned the novel had been accepted by two publishing companies: Reynal & Hitchcock in the United States and Jonathan Cape in the United Kingdom. Following critical reports from readers, Cape had reservations about publishing and wrote to Lowry on 29 November 1945 asking him to make drastic cuts. Lowry's lengthy reply, dated 2 January 1946, was a passionate defense of the book in which he sensed he had created a work of lasting greatness: "Whether it sells or not seems to me either way a risk. But there is something about the destiny of the creation of the book that seems to tell me it just might go on selling a very long time." The letter includes a detailed summary of the book's key themes and how the author intended each of the 12 chapters to work, and has been included as an introduction in some editions.

There have been many editions of the book since 1947. In 1998 it was rated as number 11 on the list of the 100 best novels of the 20th century compiled by the Modern Library. TIME included the novel in its list of "100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present".

Characters
Geoffrey Firmin is the alcoholic Consul living in Quauhnahuac. He is actually an ex-consul, recently resigned due to diplomatic strains between the UK and Mexico in the aftermath of President Lázaro Cárdenas's 1938 nationalization of the country's oil reserves. He wants to write a book, but his alcoholism affects all areas of his life, particularly his relationship with his ex-wife Yvonne. She has returned to Mexico after a long absence in order to rekindle their relationship. Hugh Firmin is Geoffrey's half-brother. He visits Mexico to report on fascist activity for the London Globe, and he feels incredibly guilty for not acting in the Spanish Civil War. There are frequent allusions to an earlier affair between Hugh and Yvonne, which adds to the tension between the three main protagonists.

Structure
While the story is simple, its manner of telling decidedly not: Lowry's style is dense, symbolic, allusive, the prose thick with resonance, and the structure complex, with flashbacks, abrupt shifts, and a gradual accumulation of information – it is a book that is often cited as needing reading and then rereading, for its pattern and subtleties reveal themselves slowly.

Films
John Huston directed the 1984 film adaptation, Under the Volcano, with Albert Finney, Jacqueline Bisset, Anthony Andrews and Katy Jurado. It received Oscar nominations for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Albert Finney) and Best Music, Original Score.

Volcano: An Inquiry Into the Life and Death of Malcolm Lowry (1976) is a National Film Board of Canada documentary produced by Donald Brittain and Robert A. Duncan and directed by Brittain and John Kramer. It opens with the inquest into Lowry's "death by misadventure," and then moves back in time to trace the writer's life. Selections from Lowry's novel are read by Richard Burton amid images shot in Mexico, the United States, Canada and England.

Quotations

 * ¿Le gusta este jardín, que es suyo? ¡Evite que sus hijos lo destruyan! (Do you like this garden, which is yours? Make sure your children don't destroy it!)
 * No se puede vivir sin amar (One cannot live without loving.)
 * "Salud y pesetas." "Y tiempo para gastarlas." (Health and money. And the time to spend them.)

Music
Bob Dylan's song "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" alludes to the novel.

The novel was the inspiration for the 1974 song "The Consul at Sunset" by Jack Bruce of Cream (words by Pete Brown), as well as for the song "Back Room Of The Bar" by the Young Fresh Fellows, from their 1987 album The Men Who Loved Music.

Matthew Good, a Canadian musician, makes reference to Malcolm Lowry and Under the Volcano in his live album release Live at Massey Hall in the introduction to his song "I'm a Window".

The Bears had a song called "Under The Volcano".

Diafana Krina (Διάφανα Κρίνα, trans. Transparent Lillies), a former greek band, wrote the song "Under the Volcano" which was released on the band's first single, named "Melting Alone/Under the Volcano", in 1994.

Editions in print

 * ISBN 0452255953

Plot summary
The Moviegoer tells the story of Binx Bolling, a young stock-broker in postwar New Orleans. The decline of southern traditions, problems within and with his family and clan, added to__ stress syndrome from his traumatic experiences in the Korean War have left him alienated from his own life. He day-dreams constantly, has trouble engaging in lasting relationships and finds more meaning and immediacy in movies and books than in the routines of his own life.

The loose plot of the novel follows Binx as he plans to embark on an undefined "search". He wanders around New Orleans, into Chicago and across the Gulf Coast reflecting philosophically on small episodes and interactions. Time and again, he feels challenged to define and defend himself in relation to family and friends, sweethearts and career despite his need to remain vague and open to possibility.

"What is the nature of the search? you ask. Really it is very simple; at least for a fellow like me. So simple that it is easily overlooked. The search is what anyone would undertake if he were not sunk in the everydayness of his own life."

Biography
Walker Percy was born in Birmingham, Alabama, the oldest of three sons born to LeRoy Pratt Percy ///LeRoy Walker\\\ and Martha Susan (Phinizy) Percy. An early American ancestor was Charles "Don Carlos" Percy, the notable Irish-Catholic founder of the Percy clans in Louisana, Alabama and Mississippi; his Mississippi Protestant forbears included his paternal great uncle LeRoy Percy, a U.S. Senator for Mississippi; a son of that Senator, William Alexander Percy, who was a writer and poet and a confident of Herbert Hoover; and __________ other ancestors who fought in the Civil War.

In 1929 when Percy was 13, his father committed suicide, following his own father--Walker's grandfather--in suicide by shotgun and conforming to a family pattern of emotional deaths that would haunt Percy. With her three sons his mother returned to her natal family in Athens, Georgia. Two years later she died, driving off a country bridge near Leland, Mississippi—an accident Percy came to regard as another suicide. Now the three (orphaned) brothers moved to Greenville, Mississippi, where their uncle William Alexander Percy—the author, poet and bachelor lawyer—adopted them.

"Uncle Will" introduced Walker Percy to many writers and poets, and to a neighboring boy his own age, Shelby Foote; these two became life-long friends. A story is recounted by Foote: as young men, Percy and Foote decided to pay their respects to William Faulkner by visiting him in Oxford, Mississippi. But when they arrived at Faulkner's home, Percy was so in awe of the literary giant he could not bring himself to talk; he could only sit in the car and watch Foote carry on a lively conversation with Faulkner on the porch.

Percy attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, graduating in 19___—and was joined there by Foote for a time. He trained as a medical doctor at Columbia University in New York City, receiving his medical degree in 1941. After contracting tuberculosis from performing an autopsy, Percy spent several years recuperating at the Trudeau Sanitorium in Saranac Lake, New York.

During this period, Percy read the works of the Danish existentialist writer, Søren Kierkegaard, and the Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. In his youth Percy had attended a Presbyterian church. Later, saying he remembered from college days the example of a roommate—to rise daily at dawn and go to Mass—Percy decided to convert to Catholicism.

xxx Percy insisted on being confirmed with the children, as a sign of his new life.

xxx, where he was initiated into the Xi chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity

xxx; he began to question the ability of science to explain the basic mysteries of human existence.

Marriage and family
Percy married Mary Bernice Townsend, also of Greenville, Mississippi, on November 7, 1946. They had two daughters and settled in Covington, Louisiana, a community near New Orleans. His wife and a daughter owned a bookshop, and he studied and wrote in a space above the store. He died of prostate cancer in 1990; and is buried on the grounds of St. Joseph Benedictine Abbey in St. Benedict, Louisiana, where he had been made a secular oblate of the Abbey's monastic community.

Literary career
After many years of writing and rewriting in collaboration with editor Stanley Kauffmann, Percy published his first novel, The Moviegoer, in 1961. He later wrote that the novel was the story of "a young man who had all the advantages of a cultivated old-line southern family: a feel for science and art, a liking for girls, sports cars, and the ordinary things of the culture, but who nevertheless feels himself quite alienated from both worlds, the old South and the new America."

Percy's subsequent works include The Last Gentleman (1966), Love in the Ruins (1971), Lancelot (1977), The Second Coming (1980), and The Thanatos Syndrome in 1987. He published a number of non-fiction works exploring his interests in semiotics and existentialism, the most popular work being Lost in the Cosmos. In 1987 Percy joined with 21 other noted authors to create the Fellowship of Southern Writers.

Percy taught and mentored younger writers. In 1980 he was instrumental in getting published A Confederacy of Dunces, the novel by John Kennedy Toole; set in New Orleans, it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. Toole, a native of New Orleans, had committed suicide in 1969, apparently despondent in part because he had not achieved recognition as a writer.

Legacy and honors
In 1989 the University of Notre Dame awarded Percy its Laetare Medal, bestowed annually upon a Catholic "whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Church, and enriched the heritage of humanity."

Also in 1989, the National Endowment for the Humanities chose him as the winner for the Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities, for which he read "The Fateful Rift: The San Andreas Fault in the Modern Mind."

endREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISED

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

beginCURRENTccccCURRENTccccCURRENTccccCURRENTNOT

Reception and Interpretation
My Ántonia was acclaimed by critics after it was first published in 1918. Reviews like those of Randolph Bourne and H. L. Mencken were typical.

Bourne, in The Dial; December 14, 1918, wrote:

"... in My Ántonia she (Cather) has returned to the Nebraska countryside with an enriched feeling and even more golden charm of style. Here at last is an American novel, rendolent of the Western prairie, that our most .. exacting preconceptions can be content with. (..) She is also of the brevity school, and ..makes you realize anew how much art is suggestion and not transcription."

Mencken, writing in Smart Set, February, 1919:

"I know of no novel that that makes the remote folk of the western prairies more real than My Ántonia make them, and I know of none that makes them seem better worth knowing. (...) It is not as they see themselves that she depicts them, but as they actually are. To representation she adds something more. There is not only the story of poor peasants, flung by fortune into lonely, inhospitable wilds; there is the eternal tragedy of man."

It was considered a masterpiece and placed Cather in the forefront of women novelists. Today, it is considered as her first masterpiece. Cather was praised for bringing the American West to life and making it personally interesting. It brought place forward almost as if it were one of the characters, while at the same time playing upon the universality of the emotions, which in turn promoted regional American literature as a valid part of mainstream literature.

Cather also makes a number of comments concerning her views on women's rights and there are many disguised sexual metaphors in the text.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn--nnnnnnn

And the -critics- hits keep a coming--

Some of the most recent critical studies and essays include:

Acocella, Joan >>>2000

Linderman, Marilee >>>1999

Ying, Hsiao-ling >>>1999

Wenzl, Bernhard >>>2001

Fisher-Wirth, Ann >>>1993

Urgo, Joseph >>>1997

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn---nnnn/end

While interpretations vary, My Ántonia is clearly an elegy to those families who built new lives west of the Mississippi River and highlights the role of women pioneers in particular.

Narration

Cather chose to voice the story in a first-person narrator, and as a male. Her biographer James Woodress wrote that Cather felt that depicting the depth of emotion carried in the story required narration by a character from within the story. Gordon Tapper—writing in more recent times when a larger perspective of Cather's worldview is in play, particularly her views on sexuality—notes that Cather recognized the inherent distinctions (human and literary) of male versus female perceptions of Ántonia. Thus, Tapper reports, Cather decided to "imagine a man's feeling for Ántonia", and "wrote the novel from a man's point of view".

Overview of plot and story
Jim Burden, who narrates the story, is sent as a youngster to 'pioneer' Nebraska to live with his grandparents; he arrives on the same train as young Ántonia Shimerda and her immigrant family, who settle on a farm nearby. Jim is a bright lad and soon is appointed to teach English to Ántonia; and though she is four years older, the two soon become close chums. He develops strong feelings for her, something between a sibling bond and a crush.

By the narrator's perspective the reader sees Ántonia's life at a distance; that is, through the lens of Jim's memoir of fond remembrance and affection for her—and his nostalgia for the place of their youth together, the panoramic tallgrass praire and plains of Nebraska, where "(t)he red of the grass made all the great prairie the colour of wine stains, ..". Nostalgia for the people and place(s) of youth pervades the feeling of Cather's storytelling here.

The novel incorporates short stories written previously by Cather based upon her own growing up on the Nebraska prairie of the late 19th century. It is divided into five 'books', corresponding roughly to stages of Ántonia's life—except one that focuses on Jim's time in college and his affair with Lena, another friend from his childhood and 'town' days.

The five books are:
 * 1) The Shimerdas - covers Jim's early years working on his grandparents' farm, and the trials and adventures he and Ántonia share growing up on the prairie.
 * 2) The Hired Girls - Jim lives in town; he attends school and spends time with Ántonia and the other "country girls" who come into town to work. As childhood turns to youth, the story's language and descriptions become more sexualized, particularly concerning Ántonia and Lena.
 * 3) Lena Lingard - chronicles Jim's 'growing away' to college (in Lincoln, Nebraska) and his time there squiring Lena Lingard.
 * 4) The Pioneer Woman's Story - Jim returns to Black Hawk; he visits the Harlings and the Widow Steavens and learns of Ántonia's fateful romance with a railroad man.
 * 5) Cuzak's Boys - after procrastinaing for a very long time, Jim visits Ántonia and meets her own family—her children and husband.

Major Characters


Jim: now a successful New York lawyer who grew up in Black Hawk, Nebraska, Jim is the narrator and protagonist of the story

Ántonia: the bold and free-hearted young Bohemian girl who lands on the Nebraska prairie with her family as immigrants from eastern Europe

Josiah and Emmaline Burden: Jim's sturdy grandparents, working their farm in Nebraska at the turn of the 20th century

Mr. and Mrs. Shimerda: Ántonia's immigrant parents from Bohemia—strangers in a strange land

Mr. and Mrs. Harling: next-door neighbors (after the Burdens move to town) who take Ántonia in as a hired girl

Lena Lingard: hired girl come from the countryside to work in town as a seamstress

Tiny Soderball: hired girl who came from the countryside to work at the Gardener Hotel

Otto Fuchs: farm hand from Austria at the Burden place

Jake Marpole: farm hand from Virginia at the Burden place

Ambrosch, Marek and Yulka: Ántonia's brothers and sister

Anton Cuzak: Ántonia's husband, later

Gaston Cleric: Jim's teacher in Lincoln at the University of Nebraska

Publication
According to World Catalog Identities (http://www.worldcat.org/identities/): My Ántonia by Willa Cather has been published in at least 402 editions in 22 languages to the year 2010; these data may be compared to other titles as follows:

 My Ántonia  (Cather)... ... ... ... ... 402 editions, 22 languages, to 2010.

Anna Karenina ^@ (Tolstoy)... ... 2508 editions, 50 languages, to 2011.

Pride and Prejudice ^@ (Austen)... 2202 editions, 41 languages, to 2012.

Moby Dick (Melville)... ... ... ... ... ... 443 editions, 18 languages, to 2011.

For Whom the Bell Tolls ^ (Hemingway)... 869 editions, 40 languages, to 2010.

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer ^@ (Twain)... 3,492 editions, 62 languages, to 2011.


 * ^ published at 500 or more editions.


 * @ published at 2000 or more editions.

endCCCCCCCCCC--ccc/end

Cultural references
My Antonia (film), a 1995 made-for-television movie, was adapted from the novel.

Emmylou Harris' 2000 album Red Dirt Girl features the song "My Antonia", as a duet with Dave Matthews.

The French songwriter and singer, Dominique A, wrote a song called "Antonia" inspired by the novel.

In Richard Powers' 2006 novel The Echo Maker, the character Mark Schluter reads "My Ántonia" on the recommendation of his nurse.

In Anton Shammas' 1986 novel Arabesques, the autobiographical character of Anton reads "My Ántonia" on the plane to a writers' workshop in Iowa. (It is the first novel he has read, and he expects Iowa to have grass "the color of wine stains" that Cather describes of Nebraska.)

Dogfish Head Brewery in Milton, Delaware brews a pilsner named My Ántonia.

The Celebration Company at The Station Theatre in Urbana, IL performed (in December 2011) a stage adaptation of My Ántonia, written by Jarrett Dapier.

sssssssssssssssssssssss---ssssssssssssss

XXXRANDOLPH BOURNE>

"Now in My Ántonia she (Cather) has returned to the Nebraska countryside with an enriched feeling and even more golden charm of style. Here at last is an American novel, rendolent of the Western prairie, that our most .. exacting preconceptions can be content with. /../ She is also of the brevity school, and .. makes you realize anew how much art is suggestion and not transcription."

>from The Dial (December 14, 1918)

XXXH. L. MENCKEN>

I know of no novel that that makes the remote folk of the western prairies more real than My Antonia make them, and I know of none that makes them seem better worth knowing. (...) It is not as they see themselves that she depicts them, but as they actually are. To representation she adds something more. There is not only the story of poor peasants, flung by fortune into lonely, inhospitable wilds; there is the eternal tragedy of man.

>from Mencken, H. L. "My Antonia". In Smart Set, February 1919. Reprinted in Willa Cather and Her Critics. Edited by James Schoeter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967, pp. 8–9.

XXX page vii,

XXX==Narration==x XXXCather chose a first-person narrator because she felt that novels depicting deep emotion, such as My Antonia, were most effectively narrated by a character in the story. xxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXMemorable minor characters include: Russian Peter and Pavel, Ole Benson, Frances Harling, the Cutters, Samson (Blind) d'Arnault, the Widow Steavens, the Cuzak children.

????---X=Impact and interpretations==x

xxxMy Ántonia remains in print in a number of editions ranging from free Internet editions to inexpensive, mass-market paperbacks to expensive "scholarly editions" aimed at more serious students of Cather's work.xxx

z-cultural refsz

z My Antonia z[http://www.emmylou.net/reddirtgirl.html zHarris wrote the song from Jim Burden's perspective as he reflects on his long lost love. The song is not accurate to the events of the book but has much the same themes associated with Jim and Antonia's relationship.

z; from the LP "Auguri", 2001

z as, "[A] very sexy story....About a young Nebraska country boy who has the hots for an older woman"

zXref>Shammas, Anton (1988). Arabesques. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, p. 138.

z continually-hopped imperial zXref>http://www.dogfish.com/brews-spirits/the-brews/collaborations/my-antonia.htm

zXref>http://stationtheatre.com/myantonia.html z--z

Books

 * Bloom, Harold (editor) (1987) Willa Cather's My Ántonia Chelsea House, New York, ISBN 1-55546-035-6; eleven essays
 * Bloom, Harold (editor) (1991) Ántonia Chelsea House, New York, ISBN 0-7910-0950-5; more essays
 * Lindemann, Marilee (editor) (2005) The Cambridge Companion to Willa Cather Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, ISBN 0-521-82110-X
 * Meyering, Sheryl L. (2002) Understanding O pioneers! and My Antonia: A student casebook to issues, sources, and historical documents Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, ISBN 0-313-31390-3
 * Murphy, John J. (1989) My Ántonia: The road home Twayne Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, ISBN 0-8057-7986-8
 * O'Brien, Sharon (1987) Willa Cather: The Emerging Voice Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, ISBN 0-19-504132-1
 * O'Brien, Sharon (editor) (1999) New essays on Cather's My Antonia Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, ISBN 0-521-45275-9
 * Rosowski, Susan J. (1989) Approaches to Teaching Cather's My Ántonia Modern Language Association of America, New York, ISBN 0-87352-520-5
 * Smith, Christopher (2001) Readings on My Antonia Greenhaven Press, San Diego, California, ISBN 0-7377-0181-1
 * Wenzl, Bernhard (2001) Mythologia Americana – Willa Cather’s Nebraska novels and the myth of the frontier Grin, Munich, ISBN 978-3-640-14909-4
 * Ying, Hsiao-ling (1999) The Quest for Self-actualization: Female protagonists in Willa Cather's Prairie trilogy Bookman Books, Taipei, Taiwan, ISBN 957-586-795-5

r-r

BIOGRAPHIES AND MEMOIRS from Barnes&Noble Edition>

Bennett, Mildred. The World of Willa Cather. Revised edition:Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

Brown, E. K., and Leon Edel. Willa Cather: A Critical Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.

Lee, Hermione. Willa Cather: Double Lives. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989.

Lewis, Edith. Willa Cather Living: A Personal Record. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953.

Sergeant, Elizabeth Shepley. Willa Cather: A Memoir. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott, 1953.

Woodress, James. Willa Cather: A Literary Life. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987.

rr

CRITICAL STUDIES from Barnes&Noble edition>

Acocella, Joan. Willa Cather and the Politics of Criticism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.

Fryer, Judith. Felicitious Space: The Imaginative Structures of Edith Wharton and Willa Cather. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Linderman, Marilee. Willa Cather: Queering America. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Murphy, John J., ed. Critical Essays on Willa Cather. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1984.

Reynolds, Guy. Willa Cather in Context: Progress, Race, Empire. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.

Rosowski, Susan. The Voyage Perilous: Willa Cather's Romanticism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1986.

Stouck, David. Willa Cather Imagination. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1975.

Schoeter, James, ed. Willa Cather and Her Critics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967, pp. 8–9.

r---r

Articles

 * Fetterley, Judith (1986) "My Ántonia, Jim Burden, and the Dilemma of the Lesbian Writer" In Spector, Judith (editor) (1986) Gender Studies: New Directions in Feminist Criticism Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling Green, Ohio, pages 43–59, ISBN 0-87972-351-3; and In Jay, Karla and Glasgow, Joanne (editors) (1990) Lesbian Texts and Contexts: Radical Revisions New York University Press, New York, pages 145-163, ISBN 0-8147-4175-4
 * Fischer, Mike (1990) "Pastoralism and Its Discontents: Willa Cather and the Burden of Imperialism" Mosaic (Winnipeg) 23(11): pp. 31–44
 * Fisher-Wirth, Ann (1993) "Out of the Mother: Loss in My Ántonia" Cather Studies 2: pp. 41–71
 * Gelfant, Blanche H. (1971) "The Forgotten Reaping-Hook: Sex in My Ántonia" American Literature 43: pp. 60–82
 * Giannone, Richard (1965) "Music in My Ántonia" Prairie Schooner 38(4); covered in Giannone, Richard (1968) Music in Willa Cather's Fiction University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, pages 116-122, OCLC 598716
 * Holmes, Catherine D. (1999) "Jim Burden's Lost Worlds: Exile in My Ántonia" Twentieth-Century Literature 45(3): pp. 336–346
 * Lambert, Deborah G. (1982) "The Defeat of a Hero: Autonomy and Sexuality in My Ántonia" American Literature 53(4): pp. 676–690
 * Millington, Richard H. (1994) "Willa Cather and "The Storyteller": Hostility to the Novel in My Ántonia" American Literature 66(4): pp. 689-717
 * Prchal, Tim (2004) "The Bohemian Paradox: My Antonia and Popular Images of Czech Immigrants" MELUS (Society for the Study of the Multi- Ethnic Literature of the United States) 29(2): pp. 3–25
 * Tellefsen, Blythe (1999) "Blood in the Wheat: Willa Cather's My Antonia" Studies in American Fiction 27(2): pp. 229–244
 * Urgo, Joseph (1997) "Willa Cather and the Myth of American Migration" College English 59(2): pp. 206–217
 * Yukman, Claudia (1988) "Frontier Relationships in Willa Cather's My Ántonia" Pacific Coast Philology 23(1/2): pp. 94–105

endREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISEDendREVISED

cccccccccccccccCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

beginCURRENTbeginCURRENTbeginCURRENTbeginCURRENT--NOT

endCURRENTendCURRENTendCURRENTendCURRENTendCURRENT ---re @MyAntonia

EXST
Existentialism is the philosophy that holds that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking human being, but the acting, feeling, living human individual. For an individual, existentialism's starting point typically is characterized by "the existential attitude", or the sense of disorientation and confusion that arises when facing an apparently meaningless or absurd world. Many existentialists have regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies as too abstract and uselessly remote from concrete human experience. Existentialism is further characterized by its proponents typically holding profound doctrinal differences in their other philosophies or worldviews.

The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered the founder of existentialism. He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and for living his or her own life passionately and sincerely even in view of the many existential obstacles, dissatifactions and distractions that occur in one's life including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom. Contemporary existentialist philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ on how one achieves a fulfilling live and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence or non-existence of God. Existentialism became popular in the post-World War II years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.

Existence precedes essence
A central proposition of existentialism is that "existence precedes essence", meaning that rather than a prefigured essence that defines what is human, it is the actual life, i. e., existence, of the individual that creates and constitutes his or her "essence". Thus, a human being, through exercise of his or her conscious choices, creates his or her own values and determines a meaning to their life. Although Sartre explicitly coined the phrase, similar notions can be found in the works of many existentialist philosophers.

Sarte is quoted in his famous 1945 lecture in Paris, Existentialism is a Humanism: "Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only insofar as realizes himself, he therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is."

In this context it may be conceived that a person might redefine herself by declaring herself a different thing—a bird, for instance, or more feasibly, a person other than herself—and then attempting to be that thing. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would constitute an inauthentic existence. Instead, the phrase should be taken to mean: (1) that a person is defined only insofar as he or she specifically acts, and (2) that he or she is responsible for his or her actions.

For example, someone who acts cruelly towards another is defined as a cruel person. And by his acts of cruelty the person is deemed responsible for his identity as a cruel person. The person therefore acquires self-responsibility for his identity (of cruelty), as opposed to ___assigning blame to his genes, his nurture, or to his 'human nature', or 'essence'. A more positive, therapeutic side of this construct is also implied: A person can choose to act to be a good person. And because humans can choose to be either cruel or good, they are, in effect, neither of these qualities as a matter of their essence. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards."

EEEEEEEEExxxxxxxxxxxxxxxsssssssssssssssssstttttttttttttttttttt