#richard maurer

[spilladabalia]

Band Of Outsiders - Longer Than Always

[weirdlookindog]

I Bury the Living (1958)

[une-sanz-pluis]

Though Margaret may well have regarded the duke of York with wariness from 1453 if not before, she acquiesced to his first protectorate, instead of the regency she had desired, without overt hostility. The first battle of St Albans in 1455 and York's second protectorate changed that. Having pushed for his ouster, she soon sought expanded public power for herself again, though this time through the more traditional and informal avenues of influence to which she already had access as queen. Nevertheless, through the next couple of years it appears that she was content to pursue a policy that combined control with limited conciliation and that stopped well short of seeking anyone's destruction. Though the picture becomes very murky as the situation deteriorated to the outbreak of civil war, by which time Margaret had become an uncompromising partisan, it is clear that she came to this posture rather late. Nor does she appear as the vengeful she-wolf until nearly the end of the reign, when the circumstances of a Yorkist military victory and settlement of the crown had made her one.

Helen Maurer, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England (Boydell Press, 2003)

[the-light-of-stars]

saw someone in the TSV fandom try to localise the podcast into dutch so I tried localising some of the names in it into german as well!

to localise the Silt Verses into german I'd associate the Peninsula with northern and the CLS with southern germany, since there's notable differences in naming traditions between the regions so just from hearing a name a german person can tell what region it likely is from - so since the Trawlerman's faith and all its associations with water and silt is in the peninsula, and the CLS are their rivals? northern and southern germany.

The silt verses - Die Schlick Verse

The Peninsula - Das Binnenkap

The Consolidated Linger Straits - Die konsolidierten/konföderierten Harrweiler

Glottage - Glotthaag /Glotthacht

Nesh - Neusch

The Trawlerman - Der Dreggemann

The parish of tide and flesh - Die Probstei von Tide und Fleisch/ Der Sprengel von Tide und Fleisch (both are protestant words, idk what's more common in northern germany)

Sister Carpenter - Schwester Zimmermann

Brother Faulkner - Bruder Falkner

Katabasian Mason - Katabase Steinmetz (or Maurer, but Steinmetz sounds more historical and official)

Mallory Glass - Mareike/Mareeke Gleske

Richard (?) - also just Richard

James Hayward - Jens Heuwert/Heiwert

Paige Duplass - Elisabeth Angerer

I have reasonings for all of these but I figured I'd just post a summary for now

[heartofstanding]

So, Helen Maurer thinks Margaret Beaufort killed the Princes? But... Maurer is a respected historian in the WOTR field, isn't she? She had a book on Marguerite of Anjou, right? Have you read her article, her reasons to think it was Margaret Beaufort? I'm baffled, I thought this theory was just admitted ok the "Gregoryverse", and that serious historians had more likely candidates (like Uncle Richard)

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding to this ask, I wanted to read the article before doing so. Yes, Helen Maurer is a respected historian and was one of the first to re-evaluate Margaret of Anjou's reputation and her research directly challenges a lot of pre-conceived notions of Margaret as the evil she-wolf - her book on Margaret is pretty much the standard and it's really good. Maurer is also, afaik, the first person to name Margaret Beaufort as a "main suspect" in the deaths of the Princes.

Does Maurer actually think Margaret Beaufort killed the Princes? Well, yes and no. Firstly, she says in the preface to the 2000 republication (the article was first published in 1983; the 2000 republication can be read here (pdf)) that her intention was to have "some fun" and construct a story "consistent with the arguments laid out, which would also compete on the level of 'story' with Shakespeare's marvelous concoction". In other words, her theory isn't an academic argument for What Really Happened (she's evasive about whether she really agrees with the conclusions of her article), but an attempt to offer up an alternative story that's just as compelling as Shakespeare's version.

Secondly, her conclusions are significantly different from the usual "Margaret Beaufort killed the Princes" story. For Maurer, Margaret may or may not have influenced the Duke of Buckingham into realising the Princes had to be killed but it was Buckingham who convinced Richard III that it had to be done. Then, "the order [was] given, by the only man" (that is, Richard III) "who had the power to give it".

I'm not very familiar with this stage of the Wars of the Roses to be able to properly assess Maurer's arguments and judgements. Keeping that in mind, I think it hangs reasonably well together as a story of one possible version of their deaths. We don't know what happened to the Princes, we probably never will - even if their remains are found and conclusively identified as them, it won't tell us who killed them or the exact details of their death.* As it is, this reconstruction fits with the evidence and arguments Maurer presents and it does make some sense - it's the least idiotic version of "Margaret Beaufort killed the Princes" that I've read.

That's probably because, in Maurer's reconstruction, Margaret's guilt is limited. She realises the "need" for their death and might have nudged Buckingham in that direction, if he needed nudging, but it is Buckingham who convinces Richard and Richard who orders their murders. Maurer's version of Margaret's intriguing also casts doubt on the idea that Buckingham needed much convincing, if any, to kill the Princes:

Once Richard's replacement had been contemplated, within the perceived instability of a situation where rivals to his throne (the Princes) already existed, it was but a short step to recognizing that the Princes would have to go. If they threatened Richard, they would be an even greater threat to anyone who supplanted him. I believe that Margaret understood this. She would have had more reason to think about this aspect of the situation than Buckingham. It was her son who, at this early point, toward the beginning of Richard's reign, was directly threatened by the sense of instability. Buckingham was not. But it may be that Buckingham had already, on his own, considered murdering the Princes, either to further secure Richard's title and his own ascendancy, or for other, more far-reaching reasons. Whether Buckingham had already thought about it or whether it was just now suggested to him by Margaret, I believe it most likely that their communication on the matter was circuitous and cautious, neither one willing to openly commit to such a course in the other's presence. One of them may have observed that if Richard were to order the Princes' deaths, the suspicions already being cast upon him might be expected to multiply and turn to active opposition. And there I believe they left it, without a definite conclusion.

It's worth noting that the original article is 40 years old and very little was changed for its republication. There appears to have been minimal scholarship on Margaret Beaufort when the article was written and it shows its datedness in other ways, such as the summation of Elizabeth Woodville's character. There have been a lot of new theories about the Princes since then, including the now-popular multitude tof theories that one or both survived (which Maurer, writing in 1983, felt these theories were unconvincing). Maurer also acknowledges, in her 2000 preface, that should she write the article from scratch again, it would be a very different piece.

* This is assuming that the Princes were killed (which I think they were) and that the skeletal remains said to be Princes in the urn at Westminster Abbey aren't actually the Princes, which seems likely. At any rate, the skeletal remains would need to be DNA tested to properly identify them and we still wouldn't know who killed them.

[opera-ghosts]

Wagner - Die Walküre - O hehrster Wunder! - Johanna Gadski (MET, 1903 - Mapleson Cylinder)

Richard Wagner Die Walküre [O hehrstes] Wunder! Herrlichste Maid! … Steh'! Brünnhild'!

Sieglinde - Johanna Gadski Wotan - David Bispham Brünnhilde - Lilian Nordica Gerhilde - Marie Van Cauteren Grimgerde - Marie Maurer Helmwige - Camille Seygard Ortlinde - Mathilde Bauermeister Rossweisse - Carrie Bridewell Schwertleite - Louise Homer Siegrune - Marguerite Marilly Waltraute - Ernestine Schumann-Heink

Metropolitan Opera Orchestra Alfred Hertz, conductor

Metropolitan Opera House, February 21, 1903 (Mapleson Cylinder)

[sulan1809]

Mega Man 'X" da Ruby Spears é diferente do Original - Entenda

Mega Man "X" aparece no 26º episódio de Ruby-Spears's Mega Man, denominado Mega "X", escrito por Michael Maurer e Richard Merwin. Na trama, ele veio de um futuro distante para impedir que Vile e Spark Mandrill roubassem os Lightanium Rods para Sigma, que valem bilhões no futuro. Em outras palavras, "X" é mais alto, e a voz dele é mais profunda, fazendo ele parecer adulto quando comparado com Mega Man. Esta encarnação do personagem difere muito da contraparte dos games: "X" é visto destruindo tudo em um esforço para se livrar dos Mavericks, no caso Vile e Spark Mandrill, e poderia ser considerado o oposto de um pacifista no campo de batalha. Em outras palavras, "X" é tão ridiculamente superpoderoso que ele supera todos os robôs do Dr. Wily, e até mesmo Mega Man, embora ele lute de igual para igual com Vile e Spark Mandrill. Na cena em que "X" aparece, ele é visto destruindo uma área maior com o X-Buster, e movendo-se mais rápido do que o olho humano pode acompanhar. Ao final do episódio, ele reverte para a postura pacifista, e se despede de Mega Man, que clama que não sabia se eles iriam se encontrar de novo, mas que eles lutaram bem juntos... Quem ficou no prejuízo, como sempre, foi Wily, ao ver que "X" destruiu a máquina com a qual o maligno cientista ia dominar o mundo, e escravizar a todos...

[ulkaralakbarova]

Inquisitive journalist Grace Collier is horrified when she witnesses her neighbor, fashion model Danielle Breton, violently murder a man. Panicking, she calls the police. But when the detective arrives at the scene and finds nothing amiss, Grace is forced to take matters into her own hands. Her first move is to recruit private investigator Joseph Larch, who helps her to uncover a secret about Danielle’s past that has them both seeing double. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Danielle Breton / Dominique Blanchion: Margot Kidder Grace Collier: Jennifer Salt Joseph Larch: Charles Durning Emil Breton: William Finley Phillip Woode: Lisle Wilson Arthur McLennen: Barnard Hughes Mrs. Collier: Mary Davenport Detective Kelly: Dolph Sweet Louise Wilanski: Olympia Dukakis Arlene: Catherine Gaffigan …: Bobby Collins Lobster child (uncredited): Cathy Berry African Room Waiter (uncredited): Art Evans Elaine D’Anna (uncredited): Justine Johnston Guard (uncredited): James Mapes Druggist (uncredited): Laun Maurer Extra (uncredited): Bob Melvin Hospital Attendant (uncredited): Burt Richards Film Crew: Original Music Composer: Bernard Herrmann Original Story: Brian De Palma Editor: Paul Hirsch Sound Mixer: Dick Vorisek Producer: Edward R. Pressman Screenplay: Louisa Rose Director of Photography: Gregory Sandor Casting: Sylvia Fay Production Design: Gary Weist Associate Producer: Lynn Pressman-Raymond Associate Producer: Robert Rohdie Assistant Director: Alan Hopkins Key Makeup Artist: Jeanne Richmond Sound Editor: John Fox Sound Recordist: Russell Arthur Assistant Editor: Susan Braddon Movie Reviews: John Chard: Sisters are doing it for themselves… Sisters is directed by Brain De Palma who also co-writes the screenplay with Louisa Rose. It stars Margot Kidder, Jennifer Salt, Charles Durning, Lisle Wilson and William Finley. Music is by Bernard Herrmann and cinematography by Gregory Sandor. When newspaper reporter Grace Collier (Salt) observes what she perceives to be a murder in the apartment across the street from her own, it proves to be the catalyst for a trip down a dark psychologically damaged street. To be honest here, the continuous complaints about De Palma being a Hitchcock clone got boring around about the mid eighties. As Hitch is my personal favourite director it has never bothered me one bit that he homaged and borrowed from the great man’s cannon, in fact I have always found that when on form it was great to have someone like De Palma to keep the suspense thriller genre going. It’s not as if he’s the only one who owes his career to director’s from the past really is it? Sisters is a wonderfully trippy suspenser, where De Palma lifts from some great Hitchcock motifs to portray a clinically edgy story based around an article he read about Siamese twins Masha and Dasha Krivoshlyapova. Infused with technical flourishes such as split screens, POV filming and close quarter framing, the director is donating his own blood for the veins of the piece. Suspense is rarely far away, be it characters in some sort of danger, or the possible discovery of a body, there is no pause for pointless filler fodder. While twists and revelations engage the brain instead of insulting it, something many of today’s horror/thriller directors could learn to “homage” from actually, and a nightmare section of film literally unfurled out of the minds eye is top draw. Herrmann was enticed out of near retirement to score the music, the genre and themes at work in the story ready made for his skilled compositions. The score in all essence is lifted from his own major works for Hitchcock, with added sections taken from Jason and the Argonauts and Mysterious Island, but reworked in such away it drifts a perfectly off-kilter vibe across production. Kidder and Salt do great work in tricky roles, and Finley is suitably edgy. Durning is a little wasted, though, but it’s a small complaint in the acting area. There’s a couple of plot holes and one turn of events that just doesn’t make sense, but this is a prime De Palma thriller a...

[kwebtv]

Kessler - BBC One - November 13, 1981 - December 18, 1981

Drama (6 Episodes)

Running Time: 60 minutes

Stars:

Clifford Rose as Ludwig Kessler

Alan Dobie as Richard Bauer

Nitza Saul as Mical Rak

Alison Glennie as Ingrid Dorf

Nicholas Young as Franz Hoss

Ralph Michael as Colonel Hans Ruckert

Bernard Hepton as Albert Foiret

Angela Richards as Monique Durnford

Juliet Hammond-Hill as Natalie Chantrens

Guy Rolfe as Don Julian Yqueras

Oscar Quitak as Josef Mengele

Jerome Willis as Hugo van Eyck

John Moreno as Jose Garriga

Robert Morris as Karl Leider

Jeremy Wilkin as Gidney

Harold Innocent as Deakin

Royston Tickner as Maurer

John Dearth as Graun

Ishia Bennison as Ruth Liberman

Robert Eddison as Heinrich Himmler

Gareth Milne as Muller

[wanderingmind867]

My US Voting Record:

I made this with the help of wikipedia, google and posts like voting guides which I found online.

Note: I would have been a Monarchist during the Revolutionary War, but I'd probably still vote if living in America (No matter how displeased the revolution made me, I'd probably still always be willing to vote). But to show my dissatisfaction, every vote until 1824 is a protest vote:

1788: Nobody (I refuse to vote for George Washington). Maybe a write in protest vote for King George III?

1792: Nobody (I refuse to vote for George Washington). Maybe a write in protest vote for King George III?

1796: Maybe a write in protest vote for King George III?

1800: Maybe a write in protest vote for King George III?

1804: Maybe a write in protest vote for King George III?

1808: Maybe a write in protest vote for King George III?

1812: Protest Vote for King George III (I can't vote for anyone after the War of 1812 got started)

1816: Protest Vote for King George III (again, I don't know if I'd be able to forgive anyone after the War of 1812)

1820: Protest Vote for King George IV (I can't support Monroe after he helped fight 1812 against Canada and the British).

1824: Henry Clay/Nathan Sanford

1824 Contingent: John Quincy Adams

1828: John Quincy Adams/Richard Rush

1832: Henry Clay/John Sergeant

1836: Daniel Webster/Francis Granger or William Henry Harrison/Francis Granger

1840: William Henry Harrison/John Tyler

1844: Henry Clay/Theodore Frelinghuysen

1848: Martin Van Buren/Charles F. Adams

1852: John P. Hale/George W. Julian

1856: John C. Frémont/William L. Dayton

1860: Abraham Lincoln/Hannibal Hamlin

1864: Abraham Lincoln/Andrew Johnson

1868: Ulysses S. Grant/Schuyler Colfax

1872: Horace Greeley/Benjamin Gratz Brown

1876: Samuel Tilden/Thomas A. Hendricks

1880: James A. Garfield/Chester A. Arthur

1884: Grover Cleveland/Thomas A. Hendricks

1888: Benjamin Harrison/Levi P. Morton

1892: James B. Weaver/James G. Field

1896: William Jennings Bryan/Thomas E. Watson

1900: William Jennings Bryan/Adlai Stevenson I

1904: Eugene V. Debs/Benjamin Hanford

1908: William Jennings Bryan/John Kern

1912: Eugene V. Debs/Emil Seidel

1916: Allan L. Benson/George R. Kirkpatrick

1920: Eugene V. Debs/Seymour Stedman

1924: Robert M. LaFollette/Burton K. Wheeler

1928: Al Smith/Joseph T. Robinson (although Herbert Hoover and Charles Curtis aren't bad either. I might've been a prohibitionist then, considering I hate the taste of alcohol. But Smith opposed lynching. So he gets my vote).

1932: Norman Thomas/James H. Maurer

1936: Norman Thomas/George A. Nelson

1940: Norman Thomas/Maynard Krueger

1944: Norman Thomas/Darlington Hoopes

1948: Henry A. Wallace/Glen H. Taylor

1952: Adlai Stevenson II/John Sparkman

1956: Adlai Stevenson II/Estes Kefauver

1960: Richard Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (Solely because I hate JFK)

1964: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert Humphrey

1968: Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie

1972: George McGovern/Sargent Shriver (although I still really like Thomas Eagleton as VP)

1976: Gerald Ford/Bob Dole

1980: Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale

1984: Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro

1988: Willa Kenoyer/Ron Ehrenreich (I hear Michael Dukakis went to high school with the guy who founded the Judge Rotenberg Centre, which is a terrible place. So I can't vote for Dukakis. Can't take a chance on him with that history).

1992: Ross Perot/James Stockdale

1996: Ross Perot/Pat Choate

2000: Ralph Nader/Winona Laduke

2004: Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo

2008: Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez

2012: Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Beginning in 2012, I'd probably start voting for Democrats more often because I felt I had no choice. But I'm still a bit unhappy with them. Haven't been since 1988 or 1992).

2016: Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear

2020: Joe Biden/Kamala Harris (My heart says Howie Hawkins/Angela Walker, however).

[spilladabalia]

Band Of Outsiders - Dutch Girl Concern

[weirdlookindog]

I Bury the Living (1958)

[une-sanz-pluis]

Prior to Henry's illness Margaret does not appear to have been anyone's avowed enemy. She was certainly not the enemy of Richard, duke of York, but was regarded by him and his wife as a potential intercessor in his behalf. whatever her private feelings may have been, she appears to have purposely cultivated an image of accessibility, in part through her gifts. Indeed, it appears that her first publicly political response to the crisis should be seen as an attempt to bridge differences rather than as partisan support of a particular faction. Moreover, the notion of faction itself must be questioned, for it grew out of circumstantial cooperation and temporary convenience and could at times be altered by changes in the wind. 'York' - identified as a firm alliance between the duke of York, the Neville earls of Salisbury and Warwick and their associates - appeared as a distinct faction around the time of the first battle of St Albans, while 'Lancaster' remained more amorphous, composed of persons who for one reason or another remained actively loyal to Henry, though only some of them bore specific grudges against York or the Nevilles. Without 'York' there was, in fact, no 'Lancaster'.

Helen Maurer, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England (Boydell Press, 2003)

[undiscoveredclassics]

We wanted to share Richard Brown’s story with the 1958 Thor, reposted below along with his photos. Showing a car at The Amelia Concours D’Elegance was amazing. Translated to “competition of elegance”. It’s considered the Pebble Beach show off the east coast. I’ve been going to the Amelia show for 23 years, but this is the first time I had a car invited to attend. This isn’t a typical car show where you bring a car if you want to. It’s quite different. If your vehicle qualifies and meets the standards and criteria they are looking for… the board of directors will choose your car, and officially invite your car to attend the event. In the automotive collector world it’s an incredible honor. This event is more of an art exhibit than any thing else. It’s about sculpture, history, design, and provenance. If this sounds high brow and “Hoity toity”, well that’s because it is. And on a rare occasion, riff raff like myself slips through the cracks and gets in anyways!! I started the project in July and stayed on it till the day before the show. Everything came apart to get restored. The only thing not touched was the shift knob. I wanted to leave it with all the fingerprints from the past owners, all the way to its original creator Nik Gudmunds. Thanks goes Matthew Burke and Karl Gudmunds for historical reference, to Augie Maurer for chassis fabrication and exhaust recreation, Nathan Lizana for the period correct 36hp motor, Ronnie Schmitt for seats and headliner upholstery, Patrick Frye for wiring harness and engine tuning, Marvin Rabalais for initial body stripping and prep, and especially Scott Taylor for the final bodywork and paint, and sticking with me…staying up till midnight helping me put it all back together. A special thanks goes to my friend Geoffrey Hacker of Undiscovered Classics for pushing me to restore the Thor, and being the conduit to connect me to the Amelia Concours show. Couldn’t have got there without him. (at The Amelia) https://www.instagram.com/p/CpvEtvas7ny/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[heartofstanding]

Major gender transformation in wars of the roses?

Hi! I'm not sure what you're asking here - I think it's "was there a major transformation in the way gender was perceived in the Wars of the Roses"? If so, that's probably best saved for as the subject of a research thesis!

Certainly, I can't comment on the Wars of the Roses as a whole since I'm most familiar with the early stages and Lancastrian side of things. And are we asking about the general experience of gender by all of the English population, the nobility or just the kings and queens? Are considering the experiences of both men and women or the experiences men or women?

I'd recommend looking at the following for gender expectations of monarchs during the WOTR:

J. L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens. Study of queenship during the WOTR which talks about the gender expectations.

The Later Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts ed. Aidan Norrie, Carolyn Harris, J. L. Laynesmith, Danna R. Messer and Elena Woodacre. Anne Crawford's chapter is probably most relevant to the subject though her views of the WOTR queens are rather dated and very Ricardian leaning.

Katherine J. Lewis, Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England. The book mostly deals with Henry V and Henry VI but there's an epilogue that discusses Edward IV and Richard III.

Helen Maurer, Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power In Late Medieval England. Margaret of Anjou-centric of course.

Both Katherine Lewis and Helen Maurer have articles that talk about gender in relation to Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou.

Christopher Fletcher's Richard II: Manhood, Youth and Politics, 1377-1399. This does not cover the WOTR (unless we consider Richard II's deposition to be the start of the WOTR) but was the first (?) major study of gender and late medieval kingship to be published and thus provides some necessarily frameworks for discussions. It's flawed in parts but very worth reading.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help! I wonder if any of my followers might have other recs?

[jewishpubliclibrary]