The Rise of Al Capone and Lucky Luciano

The Rise of Al Capone and Lucky Luciano The Five Points Gang is one of the most infamous and storied gangs in the history of New York City. Five Points was formed in the 1890’s and maintained its’ status until the late 1910’s when America saw the beginning stages of organized crime. Both Al Capone and Lucky Luciano would rise out of this gang to become major gangsters in America.   The Five Points gang was from the lower east side of Manhattan and numbered as many as 1500 members including two of the most recognizable names in â€Å"mob† history – Al Capone and Lucky Luciano – and who would change the way that the Italian crime families would operate. Al Capone Alphonse Gabriel Capone was born in Brooklyn, New York on January 17, 1899, to hardworking immigrant parents. After quitting school after the sixth grade, Capone held several legitimate jobs that included working as a pinboy in a bowling alley, a clerk in a candy store, and a cutter in a book bindery. As a gang member, he worked as a bouncer and bartender for fellow gangster Frankie Yales at the Harvard Inn. While working at the Inn, Capone received his nickname â€Å"Scarface† after he insulted a patron and was attacked by her brother. Growing up, Capone became a member of the Five Points Gang, with his leader being Johnny Torrio. Torrio moved from New York to Chicago to run brothels for James (Big Jim) Colosimo. In 1918, Capone met Mary Mae Coughlin at a dance. Their son, Albert Sonny Francis was born on December 4, 1918, and Al and Mae were wed on December 30th. In 1919, Torrio offered Capone a job to run a brothel in Chicago which Capone quickly accepted and moved his entire family, which included his mother and brother to Chicago. In 1920, Colosimo was assassinated – allegedly by Capone – and Torrio took control of Colosimo’s operations to which he added bootlegging and illegal casinos. Then in 1925, Torrio was wounded during an attempted assassination after which he placed Capone in control and moved back to his home country of Italy. Al Capone was now finally the man who was in charge of the city of Chicago. Lucky Luciano Salvatore Luciana was born on November 24, 1897, in the Lercara Friddi, Sicily. His family immigrated to New York City when he was ten years old, and his name was changed to Charles Luciano. Luciano became known by the nickname â€Å"Lucky† which he claimed he earned by surviving a number of severe beatings while growing up on the Lower East side of Manhattan. By the age of 14, Luciano dropped out of school, had been arrested numerous times, and had become a member of the Five Points Gang where he befriended Al Capone. By 1916 Luciano was also offering protection from the local Irish and Italian gangs to his fellow Jewish teens for five to ten cents a week. It was also around this time that he became associated with Meyer Lansky who would become one of his closest friends and his future business partner in crime. On January 17, 1920, the world would change for Capone and Luciano with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages. â€Å"Prohibition† as it became known provided Capone and Luciano the ability to garner huge profits through bootlegging.   Shortly after the start of Prohibition, Luciano along with future Mafia bosses Vito Genovese and Frank Costello had started a bootlegging consortium that would become the largest such operation in all of New York and allegedly stretched as far south as Philadelphia. Supposedly, Luciano was personally grossing approximately $12,000,000 a year from bootlegging alone. Capone controlled all alcohol sales in Chicago and was able to set up an elaborate distribution system that consisted of bringing in alcohol from Canada as well as setting up hundreds of small breweries in and around Chicago. Capone had his own delivery trucks and speakeasies. By 1925, Capone was earning $60,000,000 per year from alcohol alone.

Air

Air Planning Assignment Draft 1. What product or service will you try to sell? If you are choosing a consumer product then sell it to a store for resale rather than to a final retail customer? I am trying to sell a type of curling shoe to a retail curling store. The particular type of curling shoe(The Delux version) is made by Balance Plus.2. Where do you think the clients are in the buying process for this product or service as you go into the sales call? The client will be very excited about this type of shoe. It is a new shoe and is the best curling shoe ever produced. They will be in the first step of buying the product. This is because the shoes are new and relatively unknown to curlers. They will be a great item and will sell very fast.3. What are your objectives for the sales call? My objective for the sales call is to sell the shoe to the client.Chris Sobkowicz (left) and Jim Armstrong (right)

Theoretical foundations for collaboration Assignment

Theoretical foundations for collaboration - Assignment Example This way, parents are able to convert the home environment into a place where learning can take place with minimum interruptions. The schools assisting parents to build a positive learning environment at home, helps students to develop respect for the parents, while also gaining positive personal values (Epstein, 1997). It is such positive personal values developed by the students that eventually become essential in school learning, since such students will learn with minimal problems at school. The schools can also partner with parents through offering them child-rearing skills, such as those of understanding child development and also adolescence (Epstein, 1997). When parents are equipped with such skills, they become suitably placed to understand the educational requirements of their children at different stages, thus being able to complement the school efforts. The Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s theory of parental involvement offers that parental involvement is essential in the educational life of their children (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). However, this theory offers that the success of inviting parents to involvement in schools will only be achieved, if the schools also establish suitable measures that overcome parental involvement barriers. First, this theory proposes that the schools, in playing the role of overcoming the barriers to parental involvement, must motivate and demonstrate parental-efficacy on the parents, through showing the parents that they are capable of, and can be effective in assisting their children in matters of education (Pullmann, Wiggins & Bruns, 2011). Further, the schools can enhance parental involvement through the creation of parental invitation to participate from others, where the use of tools such as newsletters, school emails, specific teacher and specific student invitations

Confucious and the golden rule Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Confucious and the golden rule - Assignment Example sus’ positive assertion, considering other people and making efforts to help them would be living according to this code every day (Henderson, 2014). There are no exemptions from Jesus’s golden rule because he is the one who stated it. Jesus expects his followers to do positive things to others proactively that they themselves would like others to do to them (Henderson, 2014). However, Confucius’ golden rule can have exemptions considering it was a teaching for his students and stated by a mortal in contrast to Jesus, a deity. Jesus’ golden rule infers that God’s grace deliberates salvation to those who are good to others, but only when they have faith in him. This deliberation is a response to Christians’ repentance toward God (Reilly, 2010). The proof of this faith is visible in Christians’ God-given ability to adhere to the golden rule, which is the rule I live by. To show my faith in God, I live knowing that doing good to others is what God initially intended of

The Construction of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Essay Example for Free

The Construction of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Essay The Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) is operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a government owned authority. The site is approximately ten miles south of Spring City, TN, approximately 1. 25 miles south of the Watts Bar Dam that it is named for, and on the west bank of the Tennessee River. There are two units, Unit 1 which is operational and Unit 2 which is unfinished. The Groundbreaking for Unit 1 took place in 1972, with major construction beginning in 1973 (TVA website). However Unit 1 did not begin commercial operation until 1996 – twenty-three years after major construction started and according to Munson (2002) at a cost of $7 billion – and Unit 2 has yet to be completed. Construction licenses for both units were awarded by the nuclear regulator of the time the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1973, and construction of both units was supended in 1985. Unit 1 construction was restarted in 1990 and the full power operating license was issued in 1996. Unit 2 remained only partially constructed until 2007 when TVA announced it would resume construction. Detailed information about the original tender, construction process, numbers of workers, time scales and original budgets is not available for Unit 1 as the project began in the early 1970s and the information is archived and not easily retrievable (Johnson, personal communication). However Unit 1 is typical of the reactors of its time so some general information is available. For example, in terms of the plant overall, figures from 1974 (Peterson, 2003) indicate that the construction of a typical nuclear plant required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. With a capacity of over 1000 MWe, figures for the construction of Unit 1 can be estimated as over 40,000 MT of steel, and 190,000 m3 of concrete. Due to the geologic features of the site (see below), it is reasonable to assume that the real figures were even higher. There is some information with regards the restart of construction for Unit 2. Reactors Both units are Westinghouse Four-loop Pressurized-Water Reactor (PWR), as shown in the figure below (TVA website) capable of electrical output of 1125 MWe. A four-loop Westinghouse plant has four steam generators, four reactor coolant pumps, and a Pressurizer. There are 193 fuel assemblies arranged in a 17 x 17 array inside a reactor vessel that has an internal diameter of 173 inches. The reactor vessel is constructed of a manganese molybdenum steel, and all surfaces that come into contact with reactor coolant are clad with stainless steel to increase corrosion resistance. The reactor coolant flows to the steam generator (USNRC, 2003). Typically, PWR containments typically consist of heavily steel-reinforced concrete cylinders ranging in thickness from 3. 5 feet to 4. 5 feet, capped by a hemispherical dome of steel-reinforced concrete. The cylinder is typically 140 feet high, with a 140-foot diameter. Reinforcement bars that form a cage within the concrete are typically Grade 60 #18 steel bars on 12-inch to 15-inch centers. A #18 rebar is two and one-quarter inches in diameter (ABS Consulting, 2002). Additional reinforcement may be called for depending on the results of the seismic survey undertaken for the site. This was the case for the Watts Bar reactors. The Final Safety Analysis Report for WBN (TVA 1991), reported that the plant is located in the Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian Highlands, and the major geologic feature at the site is the Kingston thrust fault, which developed 250 million years ago. The fault has been inactive for many millions of years, and recurrence of movement is not expected. The fault lies to the northwest of the site area and is not involved in the foundation for any of the major plant structures. The SAR for the WBN states that it was designed based on the largest historic earthquake to occur in the Southern Appalachian Tectonic Province the 1897 Giles County, Virginia earthquake. This earthquake is estimated to have had a body wave magnitude of 5. 8. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake for the plant has been established as having a maximum horizontal acceleration of 0. 18 g and a simultaneous maximum vertical acceleration of 0. 12 g WBN Unit 2 Restart of Construction As Unit 2 is essentially identical to Unit 1, the scope of work for Unit 2 duplicates that of Unit 1 as much as possible with some additional scope for Unit 2 not included in the Unit 1 startup such as another cooling tower, transmission system, various upgrades and work completed since Unit 1 startup such as a process computer upgrade (Moll, 2007). Estimated cost of the project to complete startup is 2. 49 billion, over 54 months with commercial operation of the unit scheduled for early 2012 (Westinghouse, 2008). Moll reports that peak staffing is estimated at 2,300 craft and technical personnel. The project phases will include the Engineering and Analysis phase, which will include plant walk downs to establish the current condition of the plant, the engineering evaluations of program work and identification of design discrepancies. The second phase as outlined by Moll is the Design Production phase to correct identified deficiencies and design changes required to maintain consistency between units. The third phase is the implementation phase which will include the construction, the modifications required in supporting two units, the maintenance activities, testing, non-design repairs and clean up. Finally the Startup Test phase that will ensure the systems are capable of safe shutdown before the operations phase. Major Issues Affecting the Contruction of WBN Unit 1 Nuclear power reactors are regulated by federal and state laws to protect human health and the environment. These regulatory requirements are of paramount consideration in the construction of any nuclear facilities. Regulatory costs for the nuclear industry are a significant percentage of construction and on-going operating costs and as such regulatory considerations play a large role in dictating all aspects of the project from the chosen site to the reactor design to the management of on-going operations. The construction period of the Watts Bar reactors coincided with significant changes in the regulatory environment. The most significant nuclear regulatory authority in the US is United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC). The Watts Bar reactors were in the construction phase when the accidents occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979, and later, Chernobyl in 1986. Reaction to these events resulted in further and more stringent regulatory requirements. Environmental obligations have also become ever more important, and operators must also satisfy requirements for environmental impact statements. Construction of both units was suspended in 1985, primarily because numerous TVA staff made complaints that the construction process was inadequate and that there may be resulting safety risks (NRC, Safety Evaluation Report, 1995). On September 17, 1985 the NRC required TVA to address various deficiencies in its activities and TVA withdrew its certification that Unit 1 was ready to load fuel. The NRC Safety Evaluation Report notes the findings that there were significant problems in construction quality and quality assurance. Deficiencies in construction involved a number of systems and issues including the quality of welding and cabling. There were many staff concerns and complaints that also needed to be addressed. In the report the NRC itself recognises its own role in not providing sufficient regulatory oversight. The report notes the extensive corrective actions performed by TVA, which included a Nuclear Performance Plan to address material, design and programmatic deficiencies and included inspection and testing of the construction issues and programs to respond to staff concerns. Unit 1 construction was resumed in 1990. In terms of estimating and producing time lines for such a project, The Watts Bar example demonstrates that as well as being aware of industry codes and building standards it is crucial to understand the regulatory requirements for the relevant industry. Unforseen delays also need to be considered, as does whether risks of such are allocated to the contractor. If risks are allocated to the contractor, the risk of a long delay should be considered in the estimate. Some of this risk may be offset when components in a project can be worked on independently or concurrently with each other, rather than build components that need to be constructed sequentially. The Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor is a good example of unforseen events affecting the construction process (for example, discovery of the fault, the changes in the regulatory environment after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979). Although Unit 1 was on-line by September 11, 2001, security requirements for installations such as nuclear power stations were increased, and on-going construction projects for security sensitive projects were affected at that time. Changes to regulatory requirements, standards and codes need to be tracked for any project. Quality Assurance systems must be in place, and accounted for in the initial estimating process. References 1. TVA Website Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Retrieved April 3, 2008 from : http://www. tva. gov/power/nuclear/wattsbar. htm 2. Munson, Richard.The Electricity Journal, Vol:15, Issue:10, December 2002 pp76-80. 3. NRC, Partial Chronology WB Unit 2 (Table) (2007 August 23) Retrieved April 3, 2008 from: http://www. nrc. gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/watts-bar/watts-bar-partial-chronology. html 4. (Terry W Johnson, Communications, Tennessee Valley Authority, personal communication, April 5, 2008). 5. Peterson, F. â€Å"Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository? † The Bridge National Academy of Engineering Vol:33, No. 3, Fall 2003. 6. TVA Website (Figure of Reactor). Retrieved April 3 2008 from: http://www. tva. gov/sites/wattsbarnuc. htm# 7. USNRC Technical Training Center, Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Systems 2003. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from: http://www. nrc. gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/04. pdf 8. ABS Consulting and ANATECH, Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant’s Structural Strength, December 2002. Retrieved April 7, 2008 from: http://www. stpnoc. com/EPRI%20study. doc 9. The Final Safety Analysis Report for WBN (TVA 1991), excerpt retrieved from: http://www. hanford. gov/rl/uploadfiles/ea/ea1210/section4. htm

The Western Blindness to Non-Western Philosophies :: Philosophy China Culture Papers

The Western Blindness to Non-Western Philosophies Western philosophers still tend to think that philosophy, in a sense that they can take with professional interest, does not exist in non-Western traditions. To persuade them otherwise would require them to make an effort that they prefer to evade. I attempt to begin to persuade them by closely paraphrasing a few arguments by the early Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu and a few by the Indian skeptic and mystic Shriharsha (about 1150 CE). One of Chuang Tzu's arguments has some resemblance to Plato's Third-Man argument, another with the impossibility of distinguishing between waking reality and dream, and a third with the impossibility of objective victories in debates. The skeptic Shriharsha, in a way that can be taken to parallel Wittgenstein's attack on conventional philosophy, shows that philosophical definitions cannot be rigorous enough to fulfill the task that philosophers set for them. The rest of this paper is devoted to the problem of commensurability. I contend that philosophi es are either commensurable or incommensurable depending on the light in which one prefers to see them. Each way of seeing them involves a loss of a possibility that may be considered precious, but the Westerner who continues to insist on the full incommensurability of non-Western philosophies with his or her own is losing a great deal that might be intellectually helpful. We have always been and remain insular. The insularity I am referring to is our professional blindness to any but Western philosophy, which fills our whole professional horizon. Insularity tempts us by its overestimation of whatever we have learned wherever we happen to have grown up, but it is no intellectual birthright. There have been more than a few great thinkers who have done their best to resist it. Kant and Hegel, both conscientious, omnivorous scholars, took the trouble to learn what they could of Indian and Chinese thought, even though, as has become clear, they were not informed well enough to allow them to make plausible judgments. Schopenhauer was extraordinarily favorable to Indian thought but wildly subjective (or egotistical) in his use of it. Wilhelm von Humboldt, eager to understand the nature of languages, made an often painstakingly detailed study of a great number of them-Greek, Latin, Basque, the languages of Central America, Sanskrit, North-American Indian, Chi nese, Polynesia, and Malaysia. (1) What Humboldt learned convinced him that the Indo-European languages — the Sanskritic ones, as he called them — were the best for methodical reasoning.

Earl of Warwick in revolt against Edward IV by 1469 Essay

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick has been labelled by historic tradition, with some justification, as the ‘kingmaker’. It is with his support that Edward IV was able claim the throne from Henry VI, Warwick’s support during the Wars of the Roses, and especially at the Battle of Towton was vital in putting the first Yorkist king on the throne. It is clear that he was instrumental in Edwards rise to the throne, however his contribution has sometimes been overemphasised. Pickering suggests that their alliance in taking the throne was equal, the victories Edwards own and even that Edward seemed more adept in battle than his ally. He says â€Å"Edward was neither ‘made’ by Warwick, nor controlled by him.† Nevertheless, his relationship with Richard, both as an ally and a friend, must have been very good. What lead him then, less than a decade later, to revolt against Richard in support of the exiled Henry VI? The first thing to understand about Warwick was his character and to see that it was pure ambition that drove him. With the romanticism that the epithet â€Å"Kingmaker† implies, one could picture him as the noble-knight. However he seems to have far from the vignette that is perceived from the word â€Å"Kingmaker†. Keen says of him â€Å"Warwick was not a wholly attractive character. His temper was short, and when thwarted he was sullenly unforgiving.† The Old English Chronicle (edited by T.Hearne) describes the unquenched ambition that drove him â€Å"his insatiable mind could not be content†¦there was none in England who was before him or who owned half the possessions that he did†¦yet he desired more†. It is with the possessions and the patronage that Richard Neville’s grievances with the king started to appear. Edward IV, as previously explained, came to the throne very much as Warwick’s protà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½gà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½. He must have thought that with Edward on the throne he would have a controlling influence over the king, and with this influence the obvious power he so desired. Warwick was rewarded handsomely for his continued support, given titles and territories such as Captain of Calais, admiral of England and constable of Dover Castle, all of which were very important (and powerful) posts. He was by far the mightiest of Richards subjects, however he lacked the monopoly of Royal power that he yearned for, as royal patronage was (rightfully) extended to other leading Yorkists. Most prominently was Warwick’s stewardship of the duchy of Lancaster, given to Lord Hastings, and the lieutenancy of Southern Wales which was given to the recently knighted, Sir William Herbert. Despite this set back for Warwick, he still was in full support of Edward, and to some extent had control of Edwards thinking. Edward was still a relatively young king, and Warwick was there for advice, and with help in making decisions. Warwick’s support was also necessary for Edward, as his kingship was still under-threat in the north and west by Margaret of Anjou’s continued attempts to re-instate her husband to the throne. This drove Edward and Warwick together further more during the early years of Edwards reign, and indeed in 1462 Warwick seemed to have won a decisive battle for Edward. He forced the lords in Bramburgh (including Somerset and Sir Ralph Percy) to surrender to Edwards allegiance, on the condition that their lands were re-instated. Although this was not the final problems Edward faced from the Lancastrian supporters during his reign, it showed that in 1462, Warwick was firmly behind Edward as King of Britain. A factor which historians have usually put forward as a major cause of Warwick’s treachery is Edwards’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. In 1464, Warwick was, to further the kings alliance to France, arranging a marriage between the King and a French Princess. In the final stages of these arrangements, on 14th September 1464, Edward revealed to Warwick and the rest of his assembled nobles at the council in Reading, that he was already married to Elizabeth. The assembled magnets were stunned and horrified at the news, and it especially hurtful to Warwick who’s embarrassment over the whole French alliance marriage affair must have been huge. The chronicle of the time (Edited by J.Warkworth), says that after the announcement â€Å"(The Earl of Warwick was) greatly displeased with the king†¦And yet they were reconciled several times; but they never loved each other afterwards† One must however beware of putting, as traditionally been done, too much emphasise on this marriage as a turning point in the relationships between Edward IV and Richard Neville. It is certainly a major factor in the breakdown of their relationship, however one must take into account that it occurred five years before Warwick’s revolt, and Warwick, at least publicly, still supported the king during these years. Having said this, Richards marriage, though romantic and loving, was a serious, irresponsible mistake for a king to make. Elizabeth was, by Richards’s standards, a commoner. Edward was the first king since the Norman Conquest to marry a commoner; however this was not really the problem it was that he missed out on strengthening his position as king by arranging a more political marriage. Furthermore by marrying a Woodville, he alienated his other major noble families, especially the Neville’s. The Woodvilles, much to Warwick’s and others annoyance, managed with this marriage to promote their family to the upper echelons of the English aristocracy. It also enabled them to marry off some of their ‘lesser relations’ to be married to either nobility or families of a very high standing which further enhanced their political position. The marriage did have significant repercussions for the relationship of Edward and Richard, however Keen points out, that rather than the damage the marriage itself caused, it was the undermining of Warwick’s plans that led to their relationship, â€Å"If the marriage of the king put a period to his friendly association with Warwick-and it did-this was not, it would seem, because of its domestic repercussions, but because it was a direct challenge to Warwick’s continual diplomacy.† It was not, as the quotation states, because of the repercussions of the marriage domestically that Warwick felt aggrieved, rather it was because it aired publicly and formally for the first time Edwards’s difference in opinion with Warwick about the foreign policy that they should employ. It was clear from Warwick’s failed attempt to marry Richard off to a French Princess that Warwick was in favour of Edward forming an alliance with England’s traditional enemies, the French. Indeed, he had been in regular contact with Louis XI of France, in an attempt to broker an alliance between France and England. Richard, conversely, wanted put his support in his present enemy, the Burgundians. This was a contentious issue for the King to deal with, his leading advisor, whose protà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½gà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½, he was, had completely antithetical views upon the very important issue of foreign relations, and it was hear that Edward proved that he was no longer dependent, or felt indebt of Warwick. He favoured the Burgundian option, and ignoring Richards’s pressure, he applied for and was granted a double subsidiary from the parliament to help support the Burgundians and ‘revive English continental ambitions’. Edward was maturing into his own king and he began to take more and more control over the running of the kingdom. Conversely of course, Richard Nevilles influence over the king was rapidly diminishing, and with this influence the power he so lusted after. It was this Maturity, and the lack of power that Warwick was afforded that ultimately, I believe led to Warwicks treachery. He had, when Edward was young, influenced and controlled the King. He had had his power that his personality demanded, however as Edward matured he started to take things into his own hands, which Richard, having tasted power, could not take. To make matters worse for Richard, power was being taken away from him and given to other nobility. His siblings were being passed over for marriage that was being afforded to others, and although his brother, George Neville, was enthroned as archbishop of York in September 1465, he felt his and his families power-base was faltering. It was here that Warwick decided to act, for the first time, against the king, in an attempt to enhance his standing. Firstly Warwick continued to negotiate with Louis XI. Keen describes Warwick’s actions, â€Å"For four years he instead continued to pursue with Louis’s encouragement what was in effect a private diplomacy of his own, independent and opposed to that of the king† He was effectively siding against his own king, believing the French to be more powerful than the Burgundians and also enhancing his own power-base if he ever wanted to challenge the king (which he goes onto do). At much the same time, however, Warwick was engineering the marriage, against the Kings wishes, of his daughter, Isabel, to the king’s younger brother and presumptive heir, George, Duke of Clarence. He would, if this marriage went ahead, become immediately more powerful, and a pose a threat to the Woodville’s dominance. Clarence, like Warwick, was extremely ambitious and would do almost anything to further his own cause. By the spring of 1469 Warwick and Clarence were in league with one another and also with Louis XI to undermine the Woodville’s, and possibly to over throw the king. Pickering says â€Å"Clarence encouraged Warwick to turn against the King and helped spread the rumour that his brother was not Duke Richard’s son but the bastard of an archer called Blaybourne† This rumour was almost certainly unfounded, yet both risked turning against their own king They did this for their own gain, one with the view of taking his brothers place as king, the other with the view to once again controlling the king himself. Thus in July 1469, Clarence defied his brother’s wishes and married Isabel and on the 12th July, Warwick, with the support of his brother Archbishop Neville and George, Duke of Clarence, published the ‘Calais Manifesto’.