quote:

---

> Here is the fifth-grade exam on the Tudors and Stuarts.
>
> There was a page showing the Tudor and Stuart family trees as they
> intertwined. The kids had to fill in the following names: Henry VII,
> Elizabeth of York, Henry VIII (his six wives: Catherine of Aragon, Anne
> Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves [Henry thought her an ugly dog], Catherine
> Howard [she thought Henry a fat dog], and Catherine Parr [the best of the
> lot

quote:

---

> Dear Sam,
>
> I don't know my family tree hardly at all. We have Lord Nelson's
> silver shoe buckles in a safe deposit box as a kind of insurance policy
> for a rainy day. We are related to him through the Collards in our
> family who made the Collard and Collard Sons pianos. But how the
> relations work, I honestly don't know.
>

quote:

---

>
> "martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42987a99_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> "parrthenon@cs.com"
> policy
> should
> with
> pay
> their
> they do
> be seen
> go and
> be
> anything
> Horatio..." or
> what I
> ahem!
>
> But Nelson wasn't a great flogger, was he?

quote:

---

>
> "Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BEBE1AEA.14697%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
"parrthenon@cs.com"[vbcol=seagreen]
policy[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> A point here perhaps, concerning such 'family heirlooms'....
>
> I see little point in keeping such things in a safety deposit box. They

quote:

---

> be treasured and seen (maybe even worn if you can find the shoes that go

quote:

---

> them?)
>
> You have to ask yourself - "why are they valuable?"
>
> Such items are of financial 'value', because collectors and museums will

quote:

---

> good money for them, but that isn't their real 'value'... that lies in

quote:

---

> history, they are a 'curiousity' if you like.
>
> IMO, such curiousities are truly worthless (and pointless) if they aren't
> *enjoyed* by someone. Locked away, they may as well not exist, and all

quote:

---

> for you is cost you a fee to keep them safe.
>
> Things like that should preferably be displayed in a museum, so they can

quote:

---

> and enjoyed by everyone. They will still be 'yours' in a way, as you can

quote:

---

> see them whenever you fancy, and they will also be secure (hopefully!) and

quote:

---

> available to everyone as a bonus. You will be able to use the cash for

quote:

---

> you wish, and still say "those belonged to my great great uncle

quote:

---

> whatever, if you wish.
>
> As it is, they do nobody any good where they are (and I daresay that from

quote:

---

> know of Nelson, he wouldn't mind at all - he rather liked publicity!)
>
> "Flog 'em and lash out on some fancy baubles my dear" he might well say...

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

> On 28/5/05 6:37 am, in article
> 1117258642.120771.232210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "parrthenon@cs.com"
> <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you have any proof they are Nelson's shoe buckles ?
>
> If you do, now is the time to be selling them if you are ever going to,
> especially with all the interest in him at the moment.
>
> Check this out:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2347383.stm

quote:

---

>
> "Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BEBE1AEA.14697%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
>
> A point here perhaps, concerning such 'family heirlooms'....
>
> I see little point in keeping such things in a safety deposit box. They should
> be treasured and seen (maybe even worn if you can find the shoes that go with
> them?)
>
> You have to ask yourself - "why are they valuable?"
>
> Such items are of financial 'value', because collectors and museums will pay
> good money for them, but that isn't their real 'value'... that lies in their
> history, they are a 'curiousity' if you like.
>
> IMO, such curiousities are truly worthless (and pointless) if they aren't
> *enjoyed* by someone. Locked away, they may as well not exist, and all they do
> for you is cost you a fee to keep them safe.
>
> Things like that should preferably be displayed in a museum, so they can be
> seen
> and enjoyed by everyone. They will still be 'yours' in a way, as you can go
> and
> see them whenever you fancy, and they will also be secure (hopefully!) and be
> available to everyone as a bonus. You will be able to use the cash for
> anything
> you wish, and still say "those belonged to my great great uncle Horatio..." or
> whatever, if you wish.
>
> As it is, they do nobody any good where they are (and I daresay that from what
> I
> know of Nelson, he wouldn't mind at all - he rather liked publicity!)
>
> "Flog 'em and lash out on some fancy baubles my dear" he might well say...
> ahem!
>
> Cheers
> Martin

quote:

---

>

quote:

---

> But Parliament also passed a bill making it treason for an
> unchaste woman to marry the king.
>

quote:

---

> On Aug 14 2003 at 1:55 AM Larry Parr wrote:

quote:

---

>He had his second wife, Anne Boleyn, beheaded because he
> believed that she had committed adultery. Modern historians believe
> that this accusation was probably true.

quote:

---

> On the other hand, Henry VIII
> had a subsequent wife, Catherine Howard, executed on the charge that
> she had had sexual intercourse with men BEFORE she had married Henry
> VIII. Catherine Howard and the three men she was accused of having
> slept with were all executed.

quote:

---

>
>What modern historians so believe? Anne Boleyn was many things, but stupid
>wasn't one of them (unlike Catherine Howard, who in today's parlance was an
>air head). I don't think even Henry thought her guilty of adultery. He
>simply wanted her out of the way and adultery (treason under English law
>then and now) was a convenient charge. One of the men accused of having
>carnal knowledge of her, after all, was her own brother, Lord Rocheford.
>This is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely.

quote:

---

> On Aug 14 2003 at 1:55 AM Larry Parr wrote:
>
>
> In all of my reading about scandals involving Parr, it never occurred
> to me that there might be a connection here.
>
> As just about everybody knows, Catherine Parr was the last wife of
> King Henry VIII. King Henry VIII had six wives. He either executed or
> divorced most of them. Marrying King Henry VIII was dangerous
> business. He had his second wife, Anne Boleyn, beheaded because he
> believed that she had committed adultery. Modern historians believe
> that this accusation was probably true. On the other hand, Henry VIII
> had a subsequent wife, Catherine Howard, executed on the charge that
> she had had sexual intercourse with men BEFORE she had married Henry
> VIII. Catherine Howard and the three men she was accused of having
> slept with were all executed.
>
> Next came Catherine Parr. There were several odd things about this
> marriage. One was that Catherine Parr had already been married twice.
> Another was that she had an active lover, Thomas Seymour. Why would a
> woman in her position be willing to marry a wife-killer like Henry
> VIII?
>
> However, Catherine Parr agreed to the marriage. She said that Henry
> VIII was sick and might die soon. Perhaps she had a plan. She turned
> out to be right. Henry VIII did die soon and only three months later
> Catherine Parr married her lover, Thomas Seymour. As she was the
> dowarger queen, her uncle became the ruler of England, because the
> actual king, Edward VII, was just a young boy.
>
> A daughter, Mary Parr Seymour, was born of the marriage between
> Catherine Parr and Thomas Seymour. However, Catherine Parr died on 5
> September 1548, only six days after her daughter, Mary Parr Seymour,
> was born.
>
> http://www.anusha.com/pafg719.htm#25838
>
> Mary Parr Seymour is known to have lived for at least two years after
> her mother died. Thereafter she disappeared from history. Nobody knows
> what happened to her. Some say that she must have died at age 2.
> Others say that she was put into hiding, and later married, had a
> child and never revealed her true identity.
>
> If that is what happened, she certainly had good reasons. Shortly
> after Catherine Parr died in childbirth, her husband, the father of
> Mary, was arrested and executed by her uncle, Edward Seymour. Then,
> after King Edward VI died in 1553, Edward Seymour had Lady Jane Grey
> installed as Queen. Lady Jane Grey only lasted nine days. "Bloody
> Mary" rode into town, had Lady Jane Grey and Edward Seymour arrested
> and put into the Tower of London. They were all eventually executed.
> Lady Jane Grey was only 17 years ago when she was executed.
>
> It was about this time that Mary Parr Seymour disappeared. She was
> still a small child. Surely, she was a threat but there is no record
> of her having died. She was just lost to history.
>
> So, Larry Parr, tell us: Whatever happened to Mary Parr? Was Mary Parr
> your ggggggrandmother? If you can prove that, I will honor you by
> putting you into my Royal Family of Europe Family Tree.
>
> Sam Sloan
> http://www.anusha.com/pafg719.htm#25838
> http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/aboutCatherineParr.htm

quote:

---

>
> "martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42987a99_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> "parrthenon@cs.com"
> policy
> should
> with
> pay
> their
> they do
> be seen
> go and
> be
> anything
> Horatio..." or
> what I
> ahem!
>
> But Nelson wasn't a great flogger, was he?

quote:

---

>
> "Michael W Cook" <NuffSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BEBE1AEA.14697%NuffSpam@hotmail.com...
>
> A point here perhaps, concerning such 'family heirlooms'....
>
> I see little point in keeping such things in a safety deposit box. They should
> be treasured and seen (maybe even worn if you can find the shoes that go with
> them?)
>
> You have to ask yourself - "why are they valuable?"
>
> Such items are of financial 'value', because collectors and museums will pay
> good money for them, but that isn't their real 'value'... that lies in their
> history, they are a 'curiousity' if you like.
>
> IMO, such curiousities are truly worthless (and pointless) if they aren't
> *enjoyed* by someone. Locked away, they may as well not exist, and all they do
> for you is cost you a fee to keep them safe.
>
> Things like that should preferably be displayed in a museum, so they can be
> seen
> and enjoyed by everyone. They will still be 'yours' in a way, as you can go
> and
> see them whenever you fancy, and they will also be secure (hopefully!) and be
> available to everyone as a bonus. You will be able to use the cash for
> anything
> you wish, and still say "those belonged to my great great uncle Horatio..." or
> whatever, if you wish.
>
> As it is, they do nobody any good where they are (and I daresay that from what
> I
> know of Nelson, he wouldn't mind at all - he rather liked publicity!)
>
> "Flog 'em and lash out on some fancy baubles my dear" he might well say...
> ahem!
>
> Cheers
> Martin