barclay seats 4849 0 Posted May 18, 2009 In todays Edp "yello and green un" was the suggestion that if only there were a supporter in the mold of Robert Kett, to lead a revolt against what is being done to our club .Well...is there ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ncfcstar 287 Posted May 18, 2009 You''re forgetting Smudger aren''t you? [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
barclay seats 4849 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Actually I am asking a serious question ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuanVelasco 27 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="barclay seats 4849 "]Actually I am asking a serious question ![/quote]There are plenty of people with the surname Kett at Carrow Road, so there may well be one called Robert...... if thats what you mean. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Is there a Robert Kett in the crowd?Unfortunately although the answer is a resounding ''no'' as today''s Robert Kett would need the financial clout of Richard Branson there do seem to be a few who think they can step up to the mark.Lawson In. No, sorry, Larkin In. Bugger, wrong again, Tilson In. Oh for goodness sake Balls In...Gosh this is hard! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="LQ"]Is there a Robert Kett in the crowd?Unfortunately although the answer is a resounding ''no'' as today''s Robert Kett would need the financial clout of Richard Branson there do seem to be a few who think they can step up to the mark.Lawson In. No, sorry, Larkin In. Bugger, wrong again, Tilson In. Oh for goodness sake Balls In...Gosh this is hard![/quote]If you could find someone capable of getting Smith & Jones to hand over their shares for their worth - £2.50 and a bag of pork scratchings at the current going rate, re-negotiate the 20 million plus worth of loans to a payment of 3 p in the pound, (if only they were with Aviva...), get the supporters to have a whip-round to throw money into the pit every season, and convince Ronaldo, Ronaldinho and Thierry Henry to play for us as volunteers, then I think you''ve found your man. Actually, somebody this persuasive could only be a woman.Roberta Kett, come on down ?Or, possibly more seriously, I wonder if Mr and Mrs Turner would consider a total buy-out in a season or 2, if they are in a decent position post recession ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Perhaps you should read your history. Ketts personal wealth (he had non anyway) had nothing to do with the starting of the Norfolk Rebellion. He was willing to lead the people to Norwich to air their grievances, that was all.[quote user="LQ"]Is there a Robert Kett in the crowd?Unfortunately although the answer is a resounding ''no'' as today''s Robert Kett would need the financial clout of Richard Branson there do seem to be a few who think they can step up to the mark.Lawson In. No, sorry, Larkin In. Bugger, wrong again, Tilson In. Oh for goodness sake Balls In...Gosh this is hard![/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 I know my Ketts history only too well thanks and I know how to transpose it into today''s climate both morally and economically.But hey, there''s a new ''hero'' or man of the people every day around here and if you don''t change with the wind you could end up tacking on the wrong side of the lee... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote]Perhaps you should read your history. Ketts personal wealth (he hadnon anyway) had nothing to do with the starting of the NorfolkRebellion. He was willing to lead the people to Norwich to air theirgrievances, that was all.[/quote]That was LQs'' point [:)] Robert Kett these days would have to be loaded, otherwise he''d just be John Tilson. To be fair, rebellion against the government several hundred years ago isn''t a very good fit as an analogy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Evidently you dont. Roert Kett was a Yeoman farmer, and of middle class stature, so the equivelant of a middle manager or something. So no you do not know how to transpose it economically.Morally, he led them to Norwich, but after that there is strong evidence to suggest he was one of several leaders and lost control soon after the first storming of Norwich when Northamptons army was routed. So no not morally correct either as it is not conclusive he was the !man of the peopl" once events were underway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 And my point was he would NOT have to be loaded. He was the catalyst, perhaps nothing more. SO you, me or Smudger could all be Norwichs Roert Kett. Nothing to do with money at all.[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Perhaps you should read your history. Ketts personal wealth (he hadnon anyway) had nothing to do with the starting of the NorfolkRebellion. He was willing to lead the people to Norwich to air theirgrievances, that was all.[/quote]That was LQs'' point [:)] Robert Kett these days would have to be loaded, otherwise he''d just be John Tilson. To be fair, rebellion against the government several hundred years ago isn''t a very good fit as an analogy.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Actually I think my moral correctness was spot on! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Go on you can do it, just incite Smudger os someone to knock down some fences and declare a march on the ground....![quote user="LQ"]Actually I think my moral correctness was spot on![/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 I wouldn''t dream of inciting anything other than constructive means to bring in funding to get us back up! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Larkin 14 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="LQ"]I wouldn''t dream of inciting anything other than constructive means to bring in funding to get us back up![/quote]constructive adjective1 serving a useful purpose; tending to build up : constructive criticism.2 Law derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit : constructive liability.3 Mathematics relating to, based on, or denoting mathematical proofs that show how an entity may in principle be constructed or arrived at in a finite number of steps.DERIVATIVESconstructively |k_n_str_kt1vli| adverbconstructiveness |k_n_str_kt_vn1s| nounORIGIN mid 17th cent. (sense 2) : from late Latin constructivus, from Latin construct- ‘heaped together,’ from the verb construere (see construct ).It all depends on how you ninterpret the word Lisa… Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Yes, it does Andy.But then you''re the PR expert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Larkin 14 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="LQ"]Yes, it does Andy.But then you''re the PR expert.[/quote]Nope… not an expert by any stretch of the imagination… Max Clifford is your boy for that.Just pointed out that you can take constructive many ways Lisa… my way won''t suit you, nor yours me! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 That''s spin for ya kid![;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Larkin 14 Posted May 18, 2009 Indeed it is…Just like Crooky''s contract until 2010 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuanVelasco 27 Posted May 19, 2009 [quote user="ACE"]Evidently you dont. Roert Kett was a Yeoman farmer, and of middle class stature, so the equivelant of a middle manager or something. So no you do not know how to transpose it economically.Morally, he led them to Norwich, but after that there is strong evidence to suggest he was one of several leaders and lost control soon after the first storming of Norwich when Northamptons army was routed. So no not morally correct either as it is not conclusive he was the !man of the peopl" once events were underway.[/quote]"Robert Kett, the fourth son of Tom and Margery Kett, was born in Wymondham in 1492. Robert eventually became a substantial landowner in Norfolk. ""Robert Kett (b. 1492) himself had been a tanner and owned the manor of Wymondham making him a wealthy man."He was a wealthy landowner......... ACE you are wrong yet again, everything you say is complete crap. And before you bother to have an argument, Robert Kett is in my family tree....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 19, 2009 Why are you so rude all the time?I used the term yeoman farmer for two reasons, firstly because I did not think the term "tanner" would convey what I was trying to say as it means nothing to most modern people. Secondly I used the term farmer, because although named a "tanner" the Ketts were not tanners, but more likely the term comes from the fact they owned some tanning rights in the area. So they themselves were not tanners, so I did not use the term for two very good reasons.Ketts income is estimated at around £50 per annum, he owned property and was considered a member of the minor gentry due to these facts. But, and pay attention carefully so you dont miss this key point:I was repsonding to the point someone made the a new Kett would have to be "Branson" wealthy, I replied that Kett was not wealthy. And he is not, not wealthy in Branson terms and not overly wealthy for his day. Lots of people own manor/country houses and are considered "well off" but are certainly not rich.You are letting one hugely general piece from wikipedia govern your opinion, and to launch yet another attack, despite being proven totally wrong in the thread you are evidentally still sore about.I apologise if I mislead you by trying to convey things in modern terms. If you wish to discuss the Norfolk Rebellion in I am more than happy to oblige having written several study pieces over the years on the subject.[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="ACE"]Evidently you dont. Roert Kett was a Yeoman farmer, and of middle class stature, so the equivelant of a middle manager or something. So no you do not know how to transpose it economically.Morally, he led them to Norwich, but after that there is strong evidence to suggest he was one of several leaders and lost control soon after the first storming of Norwich when Northamptons army was routed. So no not morally correct either as it is not conclusive he was the !man of the peopl" once events were underway.[/quote]"Robert Kett, the fourth son of Tom and Margery Kett, was born in Wymondham in 1492. Robert eventually became a substantial landowner in Norfolk. ""Robert Kett (b. 1492) himself had been a tanner and owned the manor of Wymondham making him a wealthy man."He was a wealthy landowner......... ACE you are wrong yet again, everything you say is complete crap. And before you bother to have an argument, Robert Kett is in my family tree.......[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 19, 2009 And if you wish to truly gain knowledge about your family Ryan, rather than readin Wikipedia (which I have just corrected incidentally as the Governments force strengths were totally wron in that articel) you could try the following excellent materials:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ketts-Rebellion-Norfolk-Rising-1549/dp/0851150845/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242723062&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kets-Rebellion-1549-S-Bindoff/dp/B0007JCE5S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242723040&sr=8-1or for a more general work which also covers the more serious Western Rebellion and the wider economic picture you could try the excellent:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolt-Peasantry-1549-Julian-Cornwall/dp/0710086768/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242723251&sr=1-1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted May 19, 2009 [quote user="ACE"]Go on you can do it, just incite Smudger os someone to knock down some fences and declare a march on the ground....![quote user="LQ"]Actually I think my moral correctness was spot on![/quote][/quote]I would imagine not inciting Smudger to do that might be harder.And people have more to do these days, there is more entertainment about, Robert Kett didn''t have to contend with Corrie or the Gym. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Camuldonum 0 Posted May 19, 2009 Kett would get an ASBO and a night time curfew today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuanVelasco 27 Posted May 19, 2009 [quote user="ACE"]And if you wish to truly gain knowledge about your family Ryan, rather than readin Wikipedia (which I have just corrected incidentally as the Governments force strengths were totally wron in that articel) you could try the following excellent materials:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ketts-Rebellion-Norfolk-Rising-1549/dp/0851150845/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242723062&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kets-Rebellion-1549-S-Bindoff/dp/B0007JCE5S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242723040&sr=8-1or for a more general work which also covers the more serious Western Rebellion and the wider economic picture you could try the excellent:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revolt-Peasantry-1549-Julian-Cornwall/dp/0710086768/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242723251&sr=1-1[/quote]Ok I will give them a read one day, but as for now I am far too busy reading dozens of books for examinations.....,. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert Ketts Yellow Army 15 Posted August 18, 2009 Quote:In todays Edp "yello and green un" was the suggestion that if only there were a supporter in the mold of Robert Kett, to lead a revolt against what is being done to our club .Well...is there ??--I am Robert Kett and here are my demands: We pray your grace that where it is enacted for enclosing, that it be not hurtful to have enclosed saffron grounds for they be greatly chargeable to them, and that from henceforth no man shall enclose any more. We certify your grace that whereas the lords of the manors have been charged with certain free rent, the same lords have sought means to charge the freeholders to pay the same rent, contrary to right. We pray your grace that no lord of no manor shall common upon the Commons. We pray that priests from henceforth shall purchase no land neither free nor Bondy [neither freehold nor copyhold], and the lands that they have in possession may be let to temporal men, as they were in the first year of the reign of King Henry VII [1485]. We pray that Redeground and meadow ground may be at such price as they were in the first year of King Henry the VII. We pray that all marshes that are holden of the Kings majesty by free rent or of any other, may be again at the price that they were in the first year of King Henry the VII. We pray that all Bushels within your realm be of one strice, that is to say, to be in measure 8 gallons. We pray that priests or vicars that be not able to preach and set forth the word of god to his parishioners may be thereby put from his benefice, and the parishioners there to choose another or else the patron or lord of the town. We pray that the payments of castle-ward rent, and blanche ferme [fee in the form of silver], and office lands [kinds of land taxes], which has been accustomed to be gathered of the tenements, whereas we suppose the lords ought to pay the same to their bailiffs for the rents fathering, and not the tenants. We pray that no man under the degree of a knight or esquire keep a down house [keeping Doves], except if it has been of an old ancient custom. We pray that all freeholders and copyholders may take the profits of all commons, and their to common, and the lords not to common nor take profits of the same. We pray that no Feodorye (an officer of the old Court of Wards) within your shires shall be a councillor to any man in his office making, whereby the King may be truly served, so that a man being of good conscience may be verily chosen to the same office by the commons of the same shire. We pray your grace to take all liberty of let into your own hands whereby all men may quietly enjoy their commons with all profits. We pray that copyhold land that is reasonable rented may go as it did in the first year of King Henry VII and that at the death of a tenant or of a sale the same lands to be charged with an esey fine (which tenants often paid at the start of their landholding) as a capon or a reasonable sum of money for a remembrance. We pray that no priest shall be a chaplain nor no other officer to any man of honour or worship but only to be resident upon their benefices whereby their parishioners may be instructed with the laws of god. We pray that all bond men may be made free for god made all free with his precious blood shedding. We pray that Rivers may be free and common to all men for fishing and passage. We pray that no man shall be put by your Eschetory and Feodrie to find any office unless he holds of your grace in chief or capite above £10 a year. We pray that the poor mariners or Fisherman may have the whole profits of their fishings as purpres grampes whales or any great fish so it be not prejudicial to your grace. We pray that every proprietary parson or vicar having a benefice of £10 or more by year shall either by themselves or by some other person teach poor men’s children of their parish the book called the cathakysme and the primer. We pray that it be not lawful to the lords of any manor to purchase land freely and to let them out again by copy of court roll to their great advaunchement and to the undoing of your poor subjects. We pray that no proprietary parson or vicar in consideration of avoiding trouble and suit between them and their poor parishioners which they daily do proceed and attempt shall from henceforth take for the full contention of all the tithes which now they do receive but 8d. Of the noble in the full discharge of all other tithes. We pray that no man under the degree of [esquire] shall keep any rabbits upon any of their own freehold or copyhold unless he pale them in [confines them] so that it shall not be to the commons nuisance. We pray that no manner of person of what estate degree or condition he be shall from henceforth sell the adwardshyppe of any child but that the same child if he live to his full age shall be at his own chosen concerning his marriage the King’s wards only except. We pray that no manor of person having a manor of his own shall be no other lord’s bailiff but only his own. We pray that no lord knight nor gentleman shall have or take in from any spiritual promotion [gentlemen shouldn''t rent the right to collect church tithes]. We pray your grace to give licence and authority by your gracious commission under your great seal to such commissioners as your poor commons have chosen, or to as many of them as your majesty and your counsel shall appoint and think meet [suitable], for to redress and reform all such good laws, statutes, proclamations, and all other your proceedings, which hath been hidden by your Justices of your peace, Shreves, Escheatores, and others your officers, from your poor commons, since the first year of the reign of your noble grandfather King Henry the seventh. We pray that those your officers that have offended your grace and your commons and so proved by the complaint of your poor commons do give onto these poor men so assembled 4 d every day so long as they [the poor commons] have remained there [at the camp at Mousehold]. We pray that no lord knight esquire nor gentleman do graze nor feed any bullocks or sheep if he may spend forty pounds a year by his lands but only for the provision of his house. We pray that NCFC are mighty once againe, and that donkeys are kepte away from our clube, and that Delia slinges her hooke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted August 18, 2009 I would change your mind if I were you.Do you know what happened to him?Other than that article 30 looks the most contentious![;)](but not by me) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
macdougalls perm 0 Posted August 18, 2009 [quote user="ACE"]Why are you so rude all the time?I used the term yeoman farmer for two reasons, firstly because I did not think the term "tanner" would convey what I was trying to say as it means nothing to most modern people. Secondly I used the term farmer, because although named a "tanner" the Ketts were not tanners, but more likely the term comes from the fact they owned some tanning rights in the area. So they themselves were not tanners, so I did not use the term for two very good reasons.Ketts income is estimated at around £50 per annum, he owned property and was considered a member of the minor gentry due to these facts. But, and pay attention carefully so you dont miss this key point:I was repsonding to the point someone made the a new Kett would have to be "Branson" wealthy, I replied that Kett was not wealthy. And he is not, not wealthy in Branson terms and not overly wealthy for his day. Lots of people own manor/country houses and are considered "well off" but are certainly not rich.You are letting one hugely general piece from wikipedia govern your opinion, and to launch yet another attack, despite being proven totally wrong in the thread you are evidentally still sore about.I apologise if I mislead you by trying to convey things in modern terms. If you wish to discuss the Norfolk Rebellion in I am more than happy to oblige having written several study pieces over the years on the subject.[quote user="ryan85k"][quote user="ACE"]Evidently you dont. Roert Kett was a Yeoman farmer, and of middle class stature, so the equivelant of a middle manager or something. So no you do not know how to transpose it economically.Morally, he led them to Norwich, but after that there is strong evidence to suggest he was one of several leaders and lost control soon after the first storming of Norwich when Northamptons army was routed. So no not morally correct either as it is not conclusive he was the !man of the peopl" once events were underway.[/quote]"Robert Kett, the fourth son of Tom and Margery Kett, was born in Wymondham in 1492. Robert eventually became a substantial landowner in Norfolk. ""Robert Kett (b. 1492) himself had been a tanner and owned the manor of Wymondham making him a wealthy man."He was a wealthy landowner......... ACE you are wrong yet again, everything you say is complete crap. And before you bother to have an argument, Robert Kett is in my family tree.......[/quote][/quote]Think it was more to do with social standing/cultural clout than wealth per se; he was the type of person who had often been active in the organisation/mobilisation of large revolts since the C14th/C15th, until poor law reforms, centralised legal system and the development of the select vestry in the localities effectively incorporated these type of people in exercising state power rather than challenging it. It seems most plausible that he joined in with/focused the enclosure breaking of Wymondham''s inhabitants on the land of one of his neighbours/rivals - pretty difficult to say with any certainty what his intentions were (personal grievances/genuine sense of injustice in several matters) but the Kett articles are a composite of the demands of many amongst those he ''led''. So does this mean that Bly is our best hope? [:)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Jedi 0 Posted August 18, 2009 I know a Robert Kett - lives in Aylsham! :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pak mei 0 Posted August 18, 2009 I thought it was just a pub Share this post Link to post Share on other sites