[caption id="LettersfromourReaders_img1" align="aligncenter" width="427"]

Artist Rick Farrell’s depiction of Amy Robsart’s untimely demise, from our March 2004 issue.[/caption]

A MILITARY ‘ATMOSPHERIC CAPER’


IT SHOULD INTEREST YOU that aircraft carriers today employ a catapult launch mechanism using the rationale of Mr. Brunei’s “piston housed in an air-tight pipe,” as so aptly described on page 38 of your article (“Brunei’s ‘Atmospheric Caper,’” May 2004).
Carriers use steam pressure rather than a vacuum, but in each case, the piston travels in a cylindrical tube with a sealed slot on top. The slot should be pressure-tight, even as the protruding part of the piston slides along like a zipper. Each carrier launch station uses two parallel tubes just below the deck. The pistons power a protruding “shuttle” that engages the launch bar on the aircraft. Actually, some steam leakage is visible at launch because no seal is perfect.
It is a shame that Mr. Brunei did not have modern “inedible” materials for his seal. He certainly had an excellent engineering concept with a poor economic application. As a Registered Professional Engineer, I am constantly reminded that the world is driven by economics, not engineering.
Edward A. Jeude
St. Louis, Missouri

AMY RORSART’S RONES?


THE ARTICLE “Amy Robsart’s Revenge?” in the March issue (page 28) brought to mind a conversation I had some years ago when I was at a medical conference with my husband in Florida. (My husband is a physician.) A friend of mine who is a nurse and very active in the prevention and cure of breast cancer was discussing some of the symptoms and stages of the disease. At one point she said that a person who did nothing to treat the cancer could possibly have a body riddled with the cancer and bones honeycombed with holes. At that point any fall or violent accident could cause her to collapse from within, have a heart attack, or both. This is not definitive as far as the case of Amy Robsart, but it does make me think that if she did have untreated breast cancer, and did fall down the steps, perhaps the above scenario would fit.
Donna Simmons-Maier
Columbus, Ohio

A MINOR POINT


JIM HARGAN’S ARTICLE on Leed’s Castle in the May issue (page 42) was impressive and the photographs were excellent. I must contest, however, one minor point. Hargan’s statement that, after the death of Henry V, his widow, Catherine de Valois, had “a scandalous affair with an obscure young Welshman named Henry Tudor,” is an unfortunate error.
The young Welshman, who served as Clerk of the Wardrobe to the young queen-mother, was, in fact, Owen Tudor. The marriage was later regularized and the children legitimized. Owen’s stepson, Henry VI, treated his half-siblings generously. There were five children of the marriage, three sons and two daughters. One of the boys, Owen, became a monk. The other two were granted titles. Edmund became Earl of Richmond and Jasper Earl of Pembroke. Edmund married Margaret Beaufort, a descendant of John of Gaunt, and they produced a male heir who eventually became Henry VIII.
This was a very fine issue. I particularly enjoyed the articles on Castell Coch and the Cottingley Fairies.
W.W. Higgiins
Circleville, Ohio

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you for the kind words, and please do accept our apologies for the unfortunate error. Such slips are quite easy to make, you see—as in the very good account of Owen and Catherine’s descendants provided above. Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort’s son was the future Henry VII, not Henry VIII.

HARDLY SUITABLE


IT’S VERY SELDOM that I take an editor to task, but you really made a blooper in the May 2004 edition. Cast your eyes on the Churchill cartoon inside the cover. Then turn to a similar picture, a photograph, on page 56. Notice the difference? In the photograph the palm of Churchill’s hand is turned to the viewer and represents the Victory sign. The cartoon shows the hand reversed—a signal representing something entirely different, hardly suitable for a family magazine.
Gotcha!
David Green
Ocean Park, Maine

EDITOR’S NOTE: It was certainly never our intention to flip off our readers, and if we offended anyone by publishing the Churchill caricature, we do most humbly apologize.
Interestingly, though, it is by no means a historical mistake to depict Sir Winston using the gesture in this way. Allen Packwood, Director of the Churchill Archive Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge, England, notes: "It is true that in [the U.K.] the V symbol with the fingernails facing away from the recipient is a very rude gesture indeed. Some say that the origin goes back to the medieval period and the time of Agincourt when English long-bowmen would waive their bow fingers in defiance at the enemy.
“It is clear from some of the records here, including the diary of Jock Colville, Churchill’s private secretary, that Churchill alternated his V for Victory gesture, between nails out and nails in; it is also pretty clear that he knew the alternative meaning for the nails-in version. This was V for Victory and !∗%@ off to our enemies, and presumably went down well with the troops."

HOW TO RING BRITAIN


The British telephone numbers provided in BRITISH HERITAGE include an initial zero, which callers from North America do not need to dial when placing a call to Britain. North American callers should dial 011-44 in place of the initial zero. When travelling in Britain, dial the telephone numbers exactly as printed.
The editors take care to ensure that all dates, hours or opening, telephone numbers, and, admission fees quoted in editorial material are as accurate as possible; however, these details arc subject to frequent change, so we strongly recommend that readers call ahead before visiting stately homes, etc., to ensure they have up-to-date information.

WE ENJOY HEARING FROM Yoo!


Please share any recommendations, comments, and discoveries you think other BRITISH HERITAGE READERS would like to hear about. The editors would like to answer all correspondence; unfortunately, time does not permit this, hut whenever possible and appropriate, we will include readers’ letters with occasional editorial comments in this department. We ask that writers include their names and addresses, and we reserve the privilege of editing letters for reasons of space and clarity. Letters should be addressed to: THE EDITORS, BRITISH HERITAGE, 6405 plank Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112