Anyone interested in my new discussion group?
Anyone interested in my new discussion group?
2009-11-02 07:36:40
The second chapter of 'Richard III: The Maligned King' by Annette Carson
examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an
"unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause
floated by Richard Collins is that Edward IV was given a lethal dose of
arsenic.
This topic has already been discussed at some length on different
Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would
intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to
focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been
prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage
wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.
Link to E4Arsenic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E4Arsenic> and ask to
join the group if you are interested in participating in the discussion.
Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an
"unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause
floated by Richard Collins is that Edward IV was given a lethal dose of
arsenic.
This topic has already been discussed at some length on different
Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would
intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to
focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been
prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage
wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.
Link to E4Arsenic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E4Arsenic> and ask to
join the group if you are interested in participating in the discussion.
Joan
---
This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?
2009-11-02 18:03:28
Oops--I should have written the first chapter of Annette Carson's book.
--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> The second chapter of 'Richard III: The Maligned King' by Annette Carson
> examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an
> "unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause
> floated by Richard Collins is that Edward IV was given a lethal dose of
> arsenic.
>
> This topic has already been discussed at some length on different
> Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would
> intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to
> focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been
> prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage
> wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.
>
> Link to E4Arsenic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E4Arsenic> and ask to
> join the group if you are interested in participating in the discussion.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "u2nohoo" <r3_Joansz@...> wrote:
>
> The second chapter of 'Richard III: The Maligned King' by Annette Carson
> examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an
> "unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause
> floated by Richard Collins is that Edward IV was given a lethal dose of
> arsenic.
>
> This topic has already been discussed at some length on different
> Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would
> intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to
> focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been
> prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage
> wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.
>
> Link to E4Arsenic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E4Arsenic> and ask to
> join the group if you are interested in participating in the discussion.
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time, ISBN-13: 978-0-9824493-0-1
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-19 13:53:56
Dear Joan,
> The second chapter of 'Richard III: The Maligned King' by Annette Carson
> examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an
> "unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause
> floated by Richard Collins is that Edward IV was given a lethal dose of
> arsenic.
>
> This topic has already been discussed at some length on different
> Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would
> intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to
> focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been
> prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage
> wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.
cussion.
While one can't tell whether it was deliberate or accidental, an analysis of remains would help: I have read that some hair was taken from Edward's coffin when it was investigated in 18 or 19C. Hair is generally good at revealing toxins.
Physicians certainly could kill a patient quite easily, even if the actual illness was minor. Some of the treatments for more serious illnesses put incurable patients through entirely pointless torment. I've been helping a medic friend gather material for a talk on the medical history of Armand du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu, who had chronic gonorrhœa (caught as a teenaged student) and widespread tuberculosis (intestines, lungs, arm). Even when he was coughing blood, the physicians *continued to bleed him*, exacerbating his anæmia.
It's entirely possible that Edward IV may have had a fairly minor ailment, which only became fatal in the hands of his doctors, either from dosing him with toxic medicines, or from excessive bleeding.
Also, any kind of infection could kill in the pre-antibiotic era. Which raises some interesting questions about the alleged Edward V jaw, but that's for another time...
regards,
Doc M
> The second chapter of 'Richard III: The Maligned King' by Annette Carson
> examines Edward IV's sudden death from what his doctors called an
> "unknown illness" just before his 41st birthday. One possible cause
> floated by Richard Collins is that Edward IV was given a lethal dose of
> arsenic.
>
> This topic has already been discussed at some length on different
> Richard III discussion groups, but because other topics would
> intersperse this one, I have set up this temporary discussion group to
> focus on this theory--to determine if the arsenic could have been
> prescribed by his doctors to cure an illness and they got the dosage
> wrong, or if he were deliberately poisoned by someone he trusted.
cussion.
While one can't tell whether it was deliberate or accidental, an analysis of remains would help: I have read that some hair was taken from Edward's coffin when it was investigated in 18 or 19C. Hair is generally good at revealing toxins.
Physicians certainly could kill a patient quite easily, even if the actual illness was minor. Some of the treatments for more serious illnesses put incurable patients through entirely pointless torment. I've been helping a medic friend gather material for a talk on the medical history of Armand du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu, who had chronic gonorrhœa (caught as a teenaged student) and widespread tuberculosis (intestines, lungs, arm). Even when he was coughing blood, the physicians *continued to bleed him*, exacerbating his anæmia.
It's entirely possible that Edward IV may have had a fairly minor ailment, which only became fatal in the hands of his doctors, either from dosing him with toxic medicines, or from excessive bleeding.
Also, any kind of infection could kill in the pre-antibiotic era. Which raises some interesting questions about the alleged Edward V jaw, but that's for another time...
regards,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-19 17:00:34
Aaargh! I replied earlier and Yahoo ate it. So here goes--bullets this
time, I think. [:D]
Edward IV <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E4Arsenic/> :
* I thought arsenic had to be present over a period of time for it to
be present in the hair.
* With so many rich people being treated with arsenic and other
toxins, it would not surprise me if hair from that time were analyzed,
it would contain toxic traces.
* Acute arsenic poisoning has symptoms that may not have been
recognized by people then and confused for other maladies not thought to
have been fatal.
* The length of time from ingestion of a lethal dose of arsenic to
death can last 9 or 10 days, which is about the right length from the
time of E4's onset to when he died. The doctors probably knew enough to
have avoided administering a lethal dose.
Edward V:
* Could not find any contemporary documentation to suggest E5 was
sickly or had a degenerative bone disease of the jaw.
* E5 might have been reasonably fearful for his life considering his
diminished status and that his uncle Anthony Woodville, his caretaker
and mentor for many years, was executed.
* I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls shows
a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
decidedly not those of the princes.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
time, I think. [:D]
Edward IV <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E4Arsenic/> :
* I thought arsenic had to be present over a period of time for it to
be present in the hair.
* With so many rich people being treated with arsenic and other
toxins, it would not surprise me if hair from that time were analyzed,
it would contain toxic traces.
* Acute arsenic poisoning has symptoms that may not have been
recognized by people then and confused for other maladies not thought to
have been fatal.
* The length of time from ingestion of a lethal dose of arsenic to
death can last 9 or 10 days, which is about the right length from the
time of E4's onset to when he died. The doctors probably knew enough to
have avoided administering a lethal dose.
Edward V:
* Could not find any contemporary documentation to suggest E5 was
sickly or had a degenerative bone disease of the jaw.
* E5 might have been reasonably fearful for his life considering his
diminished status and that his uncle Anthony Woodville, his caretaker
and mentor for many years, was executed.
* I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls shows
a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
decidedly not those of the princes.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-19 18:52:06
Dear Joan,
Re: Edward IV:
Yes, hair tests would be more revealing of longer-term ingestion of toxins.
> Edward V:
>
> * Could not find any contemporary documentation to suggest E5 was
> sickly or had a degenerative bone disease of the jaw.
> * E5 might have been reasonably fearful for his life considering his
> diminished status and that his uncle Anthony Woodville, his caretaker
> and mentor for many years, was executed.
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
My point in mentioning this was that, *whoever* the remains are, death from natural causes must be a strong possibility with him/her; also, that an infection of that kind, essentially caused by poor dental hygiene, could kill in the pre-antibiotic era. The doctors didn't necessarily have to be poisoning their patients -- just unable to deal with bacteria running rampant.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Edward IV:
Yes, hair tests would be more revealing of longer-term ingestion of toxins.
> Edward V:
>
> * Could not find any contemporary documentation to suggest E5 was
> sickly or had a degenerative bone disease of the jaw.
> * E5 might have been reasonably fearful for his life considering his
> diminished status and that his uncle Anthony Woodville, his caretaker
> and mentor for many years, was executed.
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
My point in mentioning this was that, *whoever* the remains are, death from natural causes must be a strong possibility with him/her; also, that an infection of that kind, essentially caused by poor dental hygiene, could kill in the pre-antibiotic era. The doctors didn't necessarily have to be poisoning their patients -- just unable to deal with bacteria running rampant.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-20 18:01:29
Joan:
* I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls shows
a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
decidedly not those of the princes.
Ann:
It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for matching
Y-chromosome profiles.
L.P.H.,
Ann
DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building block of
life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
* I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls shows
a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
decidedly not those of the princes.
Ann:
It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for matching
Y-chromosome profiles.
L.P.H.,
Ann
DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building block of
life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-20 19:42:17
Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,
and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4
and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe
DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of
the princes?
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
>
> Joan:
>
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
>
> Ann:
> It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
> Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for matching
> Y-chromosome profiles.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building block of
> life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
>
and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4
and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe
DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of
the princes?
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
>
> Joan:
>
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
>
> Ann:
> It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
> Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for matching
> Y-chromosome profiles.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building block of
> life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
>
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-20 19:50:52
Very good idea - the problem is the "blind" reconstruction. How many scientists could fail to be conscious of the skulls OFFICIALLY being Edward IV's sons? Tanner and Wright couldn't do it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,
and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4
and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe
DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of
the princes?
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
>
> Joan:
>
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
>
> Ann:
> It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
> Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for matching
> Y-chromosome profiles.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building block of
> life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Joan
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,
and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4
and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe
DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of
the princes?
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
--- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
<axsc@...> wrote:
>
>
> Joan:
>
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
>
> Ann:
> It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
> Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for matching
> Y-chromosome profiles.
>
> L.P.H.,
>
> Ann
>
> DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building block of
> life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
>
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-20 20:01:11
I was thinking of computer facial reconstruction using the photographs.
The images could be emailed anywhere. I don't know how automated the
software is, but I believe one enters certain data and lets the program
run. If, except for the data entry, there's no human intervention, then
it could be "blind."
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Very good idea - the problem is the "blind" reconstruction. How many
scientists could fail to be conscious of the skulls OFFICIALLY being
Edward IV's sons? Tanner and Wright couldn't do it.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joan
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new
discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
>
>
>
> Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal
remains,
> and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as
E4
> and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
> could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what
one
> of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
> that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
> identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using
the
> photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is
any
> match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then
maybe
> DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those
of
> the princes?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
> Fiction/Novel
>
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
> axsc@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Joan:
> >
> > * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> > justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> > renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
> shows
> > a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones
are
> > decidedly not those of the princes.
> >
> > Ann:
> > It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
> > Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for
matching
> > Y-chromosome profiles.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building
block of
> > life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The images could be emailed anywhere. I don't know how automated the
software is, but I believe one enters certain data and lets the program
run. If, except for the data entry, there's no human intervention, then
it could be "blind."
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Very good idea - the problem is the "blind" reconstruction. How many
scientists could fail to be conscious of the skulls OFFICIALLY being
Edward IV's sons? Tanner and Wright couldn't do it.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joan
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new
discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
>
>
>
> Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal
remains,
> and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as
E4
> and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
> could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what
one
> of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
> that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
> identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using
the
> photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is
any
> match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then
maybe
> DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those
of
> the princes?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
> Fiction/Novel
>
> --- In , "Sharp, Ann (GT&D)"
> axsc@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Joan:
> >
> > * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> > justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> > renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
> shows
> > a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones
are
> > decidedly not those of the princes.
> >
> > Ann:
> > It could be settled easily enough nowadays: DNA, anyone?
> > Edward IV and the Tower bones might reasonably be tested for
matching
> > Y-chromosome profiles.
> >
> > L.P.H.,
> >
> > Ann
> >
> > DNA: A complex organic molecule characterized as the building
block of
> > life and appropriately shaped like a spiral staircase to nowhere.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-20 21:39:33
Dear Joan and Stephen,
> I was thinking of computer facial reconstruction using the photographs.
> The images could be emailed anywhere. I don't know how automated the
> software is, but I believe one enters certain data and lets the program
> run. If, except for the data entry, there's no human intervention, then
> it could be "blind."
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Very good idea - the problem is the "blind" reconstruction. How many
> scientists could fail to be conscious of the skulls OFFICIALLY being
> Edward IV's sons? Tanner and Wright couldn't do it.
I don't think the extant photos would be good enough for that. You'd need lots, from all angles; or preferably, a 3D scan. (I'm just watching 'History Cold Case' on BBC2, looking at a mediæval skelly from Stirling Castle, right now.)
I'm sure it would be possible to have them examined 'blind' as part of a larger project on ancient remains, or have each done in a different place.
best wishes,
Doc M
> I was thinking of computer facial reconstruction using the photographs.
> The images could be emailed anywhere. I don't know how automated the
> software is, but I believe one enters certain data and lets the program
> run. If, except for the data entry, there's no human intervention, then
> it could be "blind."
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >
> > Very good idea - the problem is the "blind" reconstruction. How many
> scientists could fail to be conscious of the skulls OFFICIALLY being
> Edward IV's sons? Tanner and Wright couldn't do it.
I don't think the extant photos would be good enough for that. You'd need lots, from all angles; or preferably, a 3D scan. (I'm just watching 'History Cold Case' on BBC2, looking at a mediæval skelly from Stirling Castle, right now.)
I'm sure it would be possible to have them examined 'blind' as part of a larger project on ancient remains, or have each done in a different place.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-20 21:52:42
Dear Joan,
> Suppose it
> could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
> of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
> that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
> identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
> photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
> match the portraits of Edward V?
Given the difficulties we have with contemporary documentation about the boys (i.e. there's not a lot of it), I don't think you'd be on very firm ground using that to *disprove* anything.
And since, like all the portraits of Richard, the best portraits of Edward IV are 16C copies (of variable quality), and there are no real portraits of Edward V (stereotyped MS or stained glass images aren't much use), those wouldn't be a great help.
best wishes,
Doc M
> Suppose it
> could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
> of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
> that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
> identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
> photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
> match the portraits of Edward V?
Given the difficulties we have with contemporary documentation about the boys (i.e. there's not a lot of it), I don't think you'd be on very firm ground using that to *disprove* anything.
And since, like all the portraits of Richard, the best portraits of Edward IV are 16C copies (of variable quality), and there are no real portraits of Edward V (stereotyped MS or stained glass images aren't much use), those wouldn't be a great help.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-21 09:22:31
On 19 May 2010, at 17:00, Joan wrote:
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
> shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
Absolutely agree with you Joan. If the Prince of Wales had some kind
of jaw disease it would have been noticed and commented on well
before he became king, and when he was king, not only after his
disappearance and the passage of almost 200 years.
Paul
Richard liveth yet
> * I think the "jaw disease" was a bit of reverse engineering to
> justify the claim that the bones found in 1674 during the tower
> renovation were those of the princes. IMO, that one of the skulls
> shows
> a diseased jaw of a prolonged illness convinces me that the bones are
> decidedly not those of the princes.
Absolutely agree with you Joan. If the Prince of Wales had some kind
of jaw disease it would have been noticed and commented on well
before he became king, and when he was king, not only after his
disappearance and the passage of almost 200 years.
Paul
Richard liveth yet
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-25 17:55:22
Joan wrote:
>
> Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4 and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current identification?
Carol responds:
I'm a bit confused. You're not equating the Tower jaws with the "princes," right? But how can anyone prove a negative (that neither "prince" had a jaw disease)? There's no documentation of any jaw disease that we know of, but hardly anyone wrote anything on the younger boy, Richard, aside from his marriage to a short-lived child bride and the date that he was taken from sanctuary, and what little we know of his brother Edward (aside from his being sent to Ludlow to be raised by Woodvilles) comes from Mancini (not an eyewitness) and is further distorted by Armstrong's translation.
BTW, why do people still call them the "princes"? They had been demoted to royal bastards by the time they were ostensibly murdered.
Joan:
Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of the princes?
Carol:
That's a brilliant idea, but, of course, it wouldn't be conclusive. I think we'll just have to wait until Elizabeth II is succeeded by someone a bit less conservative--if not Charles, who at age 62 may share his mother's conservatism (squeamishness?) regarding analysis of the bones, then William some time around 2030 or 2040! (Or his grandson ca. 2083 at the rate we're going.) I think that in addition to DNA analysis, scientists should *date* the bones, which could very well belong to ancient Roman sacrificial victims. And, of course, the absence of a Y chromosome in the DNA analysis would be the crowning touch. We don't even know that they belong to boys.
Carol, wishing for a new (objective) translation of Mancini in the interim
>
> Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4 and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current identification?
Carol responds:
I'm a bit confused. You're not equating the Tower jaws with the "princes," right? But how can anyone prove a negative (that neither "prince" had a jaw disease)? There's no documentation of any jaw disease that we know of, but hardly anyone wrote anything on the younger boy, Richard, aside from his marriage to a short-lived child bride and the date that he was taken from sanctuary, and what little we know of his brother Edward (aside from his being sent to Ludlow to be raised by Woodvilles) comes from Mancini (not an eyewitness) and is further distorted by Armstrong's translation.
BTW, why do people still call them the "princes"? They had been demoted to royal bastards by the time they were ostensibly murdered.
Joan:
Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of the princes?
Carol:
That's a brilliant idea, but, of course, it wouldn't be conclusive. I think we'll just have to wait until Elizabeth II is succeeded by someone a bit less conservative--if not Charles, who at age 62 may share his mother's conservatism (squeamishness?) regarding analysis of the bones, then William some time around 2030 or 2040! (Or his grandson ca. 2083 at the rate we're going.) I think that in addition to DNA analysis, scientists should *date* the bones, which could very well belong to ancient Roman sacrificial victims. And, of course, the absence of a Y chromosome in the DNA analysis would be the crowning touch. We don't even know that they belong to boys.
Carol, wishing for a new (objective) translation of Mancini in the interim
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-25 21:27:17
I don't think it needs DNA. Radio-carbon-dating would be enough to
prove that the bones are Roman.
And there's not a snowflake in hell's chance of the Crown allowing
the bones to be inspected until the next reign at the earliest and I
think it's unlikely then.
Best wishes
Christine
At 19:40 20/05/2010, Joan wrote:
>Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,
>and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4
>and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
>could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
>of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
>that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
>identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
>photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
>match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe
>DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of
>the princes?
prove that the bones are Roman.
And there's not a snowflake in hell's chance of the Crown allowing
the bones to be inspected until the next reign at the earliest and I
think it's unlikely then.
Best wishes
Christine
At 19:40 20/05/2010, Joan wrote:
>Ann, so far, the crown has not allowed any DNA tests on royal remains,
>and that's assuming one could get all the DNA that's needed, such as E4
>and Elizabeth's to compare to the DNA of the Tower bones. Suppose it
>could be shown that neither prince had a diseased jaw such as what one
>of the Tower jaws shows through contemporary documentation? Wouldn't
>that be sufficient to challenge the validity of the current
>identification? Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the
>photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any
>match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe
>DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of
>the princes?
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-25 22:40:33
Carol
I once called them "those bastards in the Tower" and got a lot of
flack. Will probably happen again as a result of this. But I'm with
you. They weren't princes any more.
Ostensibly?
No question that we still have to prove there was a murder.
Paul
On 25 May 2010, at 17:45, justcarol67 wrote:
> BTW, why do people still call them the "princes"? They had been
> demoted to royal bastards by the time they were ostensibly murdered.
Richard liveth yet
I once called them "those bastards in the Tower" and got a lot of
flack. Will probably happen again as a result of this. But I'm with
you. They weren't princes any more.
Ostensibly?
No question that we still have to prove there was a murder.
Paul
On 25 May 2010, at 17:45, justcarol67 wrote:
> BTW, why do people still call them the "princes"? They had been
> demoted to royal bastards by the time they were ostensibly murdered.
Richard liveth yet
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-25 23:12:56
Dear Paul,
> I once called them "those bastards in the Tower" and got a lot of
> flack.
ROFL! Sounds a reasonable description (especially if the word 'little' is inserted). Mind, it would fit a lot of adolescents…
(Has mental image of them as gum-chewing hoodies.)
best wishes,
Doc M
> I once called them "those bastards in the Tower" and got a lot of
> flack.
ROFL! Sounds a reasonable description (especially if the word 'little' is inserted). Mind, it would fit a lot of adolescents…
(Has mental image of them as gum-chewing hoodies.)
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-26 04:36:57
At 03:25 PM 5/25/2010, Christine wrote:
>I don't think it needs DNA. Radio-carbon-dating would be enough to
>prove that the bones are Roman.
>
>And there's not a snowflake in hell's chance of the Crown allowing
>the bones to be inspected until the next reign at the earliest and I
>think it's unlikely then.
There may be more chance than you know. Prince Charles studied
archaeology in University, so he might be be persuaded to allow the
tests just for historical curiousity.
I agree, though- carbon dating should definitely come first, and the
results of that will probably determine whether the DNA is even necessary.
Katharine
>I don't think it needs DNA. Radio-carbon-dating would be enough to
>prove that the bones are Roman.
>
>And there's not a snowflake in hell's chance of the Crown allowing
>the bones to be inspected until the next reign at the earliest and I
>think it's unlikely then.
There may be more chance than you know. Prince Charles studied
archaeology in University, so he might be be persuaded to allow the
tests just for historical curiousity.
I agree, though- carbon dating should definitely come first, and the
results of that will probably determine whether the DNA is even necessary.
Katharine
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-26 04:36:57
At 03:25 PM 5/25/2010, Christine wrote:
>I don't think it needs DNA. Radio-carbon-dating would be enough to
>prove that the bones are Roman.
>
>And there's not a snowflake in hell's chance of the Crown allowing
>the bones to be inspected until the next reign at the earliest and I
>think it's unlikely then.
There may be more chance than you know. Prince Charles studied
archaeology in University, so he might be be persuaded to allow the
tests just for historical curiousity.
I agree, though- carbon dating should definitely come first, and the
results of that will probably determine whether the DNA is even necessary.
Katharine
>I don't think it needs DNA. Radio-carbon-dating would be enough to
>prove that the bones are Roman.
>
>And there's not a snowflake in hell's chance of the Crown allowing
>the bones to be inspected until the next reign at the earliest and I
>think it's unlikely then.
There may be more chance than you know. Prince Charles studied
archaeology in University, so he might be be persuaded to allow the
tests just for historical curiousity.
I agree, though- carbon dating should definitely come first, and the
results of that will probably determine whether the DNA is even necessary.
Katharine
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-26 08:38:16
My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III"). Any other suggestions?
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
Dear Carol,
> I'm a bit confused. You're not equating the Tower jaws with the "princes," right? But how can anyone prove a negative (that neither "prince" had a jaw disease)? There's no documentation of any jaw disease that we know of, but hardly anyone wrote anything on the younger boy, Richard, aside from his marriage to a short-lived child bride and the date that he was taken from sanctuary, and what little we know of his brother Edward (aside from his being sent to Ludlow to be raised by Woodvilles) comes from Mancini (not an eyewitness) and is further distorted by Armstrong's translation.
Exactly. A carbon-date would be far more helpful in terms of narrowing down possible identity: if they're Roman or very early mediæval, for example. Also a DNA test - especially, as you say, to establish their sex.
>> Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of the princes?
> That's a brilliant idea, but, of course, it wouldn't be conclusive.
I honestly think facial reconstruction would be a waste of time, as there is nothing that stands up as a good quality, naturalistic portrait of either child - only a couple of stylised stained glass images (Canterbury and Little Malvern) and a stereotyped MS illumination (Edward appears in the scene of Rivers's book presentation).
I think there would have been more potential re: the skellies found at the beginning of the 17C, now lost. They were walled up, which would have made far more sense in terms of practical disposal of the bodies.
re: Mancini - Is there a Latin text readily available? I always do my own translations when referring to Latin, French and Greek texts.
best wishes,
Doc M
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
Dear Carol,
> I'm a bit confused. You're not equating the Tower jaws with the "princes," right? But how can anyone prove a negative (that neither "prince" had a jaw disease)? There's no documentation of any jaw disease that we know of, but hardly anyone wrote anything on the younger boy, Richard, aside from his marriage to a short-lived child bride and the date that he was taken from sanctuary, and what little we know of his brother Edward (aside from his being sent to Ludlow to be raised by Woodvilles) comes from Mancini (not an eyewitness) and is further distorted by Armstrong's translation.
Exactly. A carbon-date would be far more helpful in terms of narrowing down possible identity: if they're Roman or very early mediæval, for example. Also a DNA test - especially, as you say, to establish their sex.
>> Maybe also do a "blind" facial reconstruction using the photographs that were taken of the skulls in 1933 to see if there is any match the portraits of Edward V? If there is no correlation, then maybe DNA testing wouldn't be needed to disprove that the bones were those of the princes?
> That's a brilliant idea, but, of course, it wouldn't be conclusive.
I honestly think facial reconstruction would be a waste of time, as there is nothing that stands up as a good quality, naturalistic portrait of either child - only a couple of stylised stained glass images (Canterbury and Little Malvern) and a stereotyped MS illumination (Edward appears in the scene of Rivers's book presentation).
I think there would have been more potential re: the skellies found at the beginning of the 17C, now lost. They were walled up, which would have made far more sense in terms of practical disposal of the bodies.
re: Mancini - Is there a Latin text readily available? I always do my own translations when referring to Latin, French and Greek texts.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-05-26 17:29:28
:-) :-)
Paul
On 25 May 2010, at 23:10, reginadespazas wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
>> I once called them "those bastards in the Tower" and got a lot of
>> flack.
>
> ROFL! Sounds a reasonable description (especially if the word
> 'little' is inserted). Mind, it would fit a lot of adolescents&
> (Has mental image of them as gum-chewing hoodies.)
> best wishes,
> Doc M
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Paul
On 25 May 2010, at 23:10, reginadespazas wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
>> I once called them "those bastards in the Tower" and got a lot of
>> flack.
>
> ROFL! Sounds a reasonable description (especially if the word
> 'little' is inserted). Mind, it would fit a lot of adolescents&
> (Has mental image of them as gum-chewing hoodies.)
> best wishes,
> Doc M
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard liveth yet
Re: Mancini
2010-05-26 20:18:35
Dear Annette,
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III").
Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the bits I really need or want to quote.
cheers,
Doc M
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III").
Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the bits I really need or want to quote.
cheers,
Doc M
Re: Little... Darlings in the Tower
2010-05-26 20:23:53
Dear Paul,
> :-) :-)
Perhaps they were put there because ASBOs hadn't yet been invented?
;-D
cheers,
Doc M
> :-) :-)
Perhaps they were put there because ASBOs hadn't yet been invented?
;-D
cheers,
Doc M
Re: Mancini
2010-05-26 23:33:33
below is a link to the google book:
"Chroniques de Jean Molinet" by buchon. it's in latin. this is vol 5. if you fiddle around on google, you will find the other volumes too.
watch the line wrap this is a very long URL. it ends with the word....false.
sorry..
i'm not terribly academic in style, and i'm not worried about it. the people of the 15thC weren't either. life is too short to worry about dipthongs. that's why there are copy editors...:-))
roslyn
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVsgLW4X6rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Chroniques+de+Jean+Molinet%22&source=bl&ots=lPowxMxwSB&sig=Na6qXpcNaTBmwsa7jpf6-fngsTU&hl=en&ei=8WKVS72zHYH-M9rP5dcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false%c2%a0
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, reginadespazas <[email protected]> wrote:
From: reginadespazas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mancini
To:
Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:04 PM
Dear Annette,
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III").
Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the bits I really need or want to quote.
cheers,
Doc M
"Chroniques de Jean Molinet" by buchon. it's in latin. this is vol 5. if you fiddle around on google, you will find the other volumes too.
watch the line wrap this is a very long URL. it ends with the word....false.
sorry..
i'm not terribly academic in style, and i'm not worried about it. the people of the 15thC weren't either. life is too short to worry about dipthongs. that's why there are copy editors...:-))
roslyn
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVsgLW4X6rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Chroniques+de+Jean+Molinet%22&source=bl&ots=lPowxMxwSB&sig=Na6qXpcNaTBmwsa7jpf6-fngsTU&hl=en&ei=8WKVS72zHYH-M9rP5dcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false%c2%a0
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, reginadespazas <[email protected]> wrote:
From: reginadespazas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mancini
To:
Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:04 PM
Dear Annette,
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III").
Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the bits I really need or want to quote.
cheers,
Doc M
Re: Mancini
2010-05-27 02:59:51
Thanks, I heart Google books. [:D] *cough* anyone up for translating?
[:">]
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> below is a link to the google book:
> "Chroniques de Jean Molinet" by buchon. it's in latin. this is vol 5.
if you fiddle around on google, you will find the other volumes too.
> Â
> watch the line wrap this is a very long URL. it ends with the
word....false.
> sorry..
> Â
> i'm not terribly academic in style, and i'm not worried about it. the
people of the 15thC weren't either. life is too short to worry about
dipthongs. that's why there are copy editors...:-))
> Â
> roslyn
> Â
>
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVsgLW4X6rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22C\
hroniques+de+Jean+Molinet%22&source=bl&ots=lPowxMxwSB&sig=Na6qXpcNaTBmws\
a7jpf6-fngsTU&hl=en&ei=8WKVS72zHYH-M9rP5dcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resul\
t&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=falseÂ
> Â
> --- On Wed, 5/26/10, reginadespazas docm@... wrote:
>
>
> From: reginadespazas docm@...
> Subject: Re: Mancini
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:04 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Dear Annette,
>
> > My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both
the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I
agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new
title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The
Accession of Richard III").
>
> Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other
people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the
bits I really need or want to quote.
> cheers,
> Doc M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
[:">]
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards Finalist for General
Fiction/Novel
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> below is a link to the google book:
> "Chroniques de Jean Molinet" by buchon. it's in latin. this is vol 5.
if you fiddle around on google, you will find the other volumes too.
> Â
> watch the line wrap this is a very long URL. it ends with the
word....false.
> sorry..
> Â
> i'm not terribly academic in style, and i'm not worried about it. the
people of the 15thC weren't either. life is too short to worry about
dipthongs. that's why there are copy editors...:-))
> Â
> roslyn
> Â
>
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVsgLW4X6rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22C\
hroniques+de+Jean+Molinet%22&source=bl&ots=lPowxMxwSB&sig=Na6qXpcNaTBmws\
a7jpf6-fngsTU&hl=en&ei=8WKVS72zHYH-M9rP5dcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resul\
t&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=falseÂ
> Â
> --- On Wed, 5/26/10, reginadespazas docm@... wrote:
>
>
> From: reginadespazas docm@...
> Subject: Re: Mancini
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:04 PM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Dear Annette,
>
> > My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both
the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I
agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new
title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The
Accession of Richard III").
>
> Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other
people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the
bits I really need or want to quote.
> cheers,
> Doc M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Mancini
2010-05-27 14:44:36
oops sorry messed up. this is in french, not latin. i had not looked at it for a couple of months. i knew was in a "foreign" language.
roslyn
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Mancini
To:
Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 6:33 PM
below is a link to the google book:
"Chroniques de Jean Molinet" by buchon. it's in latin. this is vol 5. if you fiddle around on google, you will find the other volumes too.
watch the line wrap this is a very long URL. it ends with the word....false.
sorry..
i'm not terribly academic in style, and i'm not worried about it. the people of the 15thC weren't either. life is too short to worry about dipthongs. that's why there are copy editors...:-))
roslyn
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVsgLW4X6rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Chroniques+de+Jean+Molinet%22&source=bl&ots=lPowxMxwSB&sig=Na6qXpcNaTBmwsa7jpf6-fngsTU&hl=en&ei=8WKVS72zHYH-M9rP5dcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false%c2%a0
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, reginadespazas <[email protected]> wrote:
From: reginadespazas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mancini
To:
Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:04 PM
Dear Annette,
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III").
Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the bits I really need or want to quote.
cheers,
Doc M
roslyn
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Mancini
To:
Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 6:33 PM
below is a link to the google book:
"Chroniques de Jean Molinet" by buchon. it's in latin. this is vol 5. if you fiddle around on google, you will find the other volumes too.
watch the line wrap this is a very long URL. it ends with the word....false.
sorry..
i'm not terribly academic in style, and i'm not worried about it. the people of the 15thC weren't either. life is too short to worry about dipthongs. that's why there are copy editors...:-))
roslyn
http://books.google.ca/books?id=XVsgLW4X6rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Chroniques+de+Jean+Molinet%22&source=bl&ots=lPowxMxwSB&sig=Na6qXpcNaTBmwsa7jpf6-fngsTU&hl=en&ei=8WKVS72zHYH-M9rP5dcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false%c2%a0
--- On Wed, 5/26/10, reginadespazas <[email protected]> wrote:
From: reginadespazas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Mancini
To:
Received: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:04 PM
Dear Annette,
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III").
Must try to track one down, for the Latin. I tend to use other people's translations as a general content guide, but do my own for the bits I really need or want to quote.
cheers,
Doc M
Re: Mancini
2010-05-28 00:06:28
Dear Roslyn,
> oops sorry messed up. this is in french, not latin. i had not looked at it for a couple of months. i knew was in a "foreign" language.
Who was asking about de Molinet?
cheers,
Doc M
> oops sorry messed up. this is in french, not latin. i had not looked at it for a couple of months. i knew was in a "foreign" language.
Who was asking about de Molinet?
cheers,
Doc M
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-06-05 22:22:45
Annette Carson wrote:
>
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III"). Any other suggestions?
> Regards, Annette
Carol:
"Accession" is perfect. Alternatively, an exact translation ("The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III") would work. Anything but "Usurpation," which is neither an accurate translation nor the historical truth.
Carol, whose copy of "The Maligned King" should arrive by June 22--I guess Amazon uses real snails to deliver their orders!
>
> My paperback edition of Mancini, edited Armstrong, 1969, has both the Latin and the English texts. I assume all editions have same. I agree that we really need a new unbiased translation, including a new title (e.g. "The Seizure of the Throne by Richard III", or even "The Accession of Richard III"). Any other suggestions?
> Regards, Annette
Carol:
"Accession" is perfect. Alternatively, an exact translation ("The Occupation of the Throne of England by Richard III") would work. Anything but "Usurpation," which is neither an accurate translation nor the historical truth.
Carol, whose copy of "The Maligned King" should arrive by June 22--I guess Amazon uses real snails to deliver their orders!
Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
2010-06-06 01:26:26
*LOL* [:D]
Carol wrote: "Carol, whose copy of "The Maligned King" should arrive by
June 22--I guess
Amazon uses real snails to deliver their orders! "
Carol wrote: "Carol, whose copy of "The Maligned King" should arrive by
June 22--I guess
Amazon uses real snails to deliver their orders! "
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.