Re: Edward V's jaw
Re: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-21 11:47:47
As Joan will know from previous conversations and emails, it was my intention while in London last year to pursue some research on the matter of the diseased jaw of the elder skull in the urn. She is quite right to say that there is no record of anything wrong with Edward V's jaw until we get to 1933, when it was discovered that the elder jaw in the urn showed signs of chronic osteitis or osteomyelitis.
I've been told recently that Chapter 10 of "Maligned King" is still considered to be the most up-to-date analysis of the conundrum of the bones in the urn (that phrase sounds rather Sherlockian, doesn't it?). Pages 186-191 set out what little seems to be known of Edward's health and facial appearance. Mancini's contemporaneous description is probably the best and most reliable since he had access to the boy's physician John Argentine (Hicks seems to think Mancini might have seen the boy for himself, though he does not explain under what circumstances). Mancini makes no mention of the king's ill-health or any chronic disease such as is manifested in the preserved jawbone, which, had it existed, would certainly be important intelligence to report back to his patron. Certainly Mancini reported a degree of malaise or apprehension, or one might call it dread. So if he had learned of Edward's state of mind, and recounted it in order to engage his readers, he was a pretty poor reporter if he had not also discovered from Argentine that he suffered, poor child, from chronic pain in the jaw.
I couldn't find another facial description until I came to Michael Hicks's so-called biography of Edward V, where he is described as 'a very good-looking boy' (p. 137, no reference cited). Hicks does his best to duck the matter of the bones altogether, mentioning them only twice, and then with supreme equivocation. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him to investigate the 15th-century implications of the heir apparent's jaw being afflicted by osteitis or osteomyelitis (or, as Hicks calls him, the 'heir presumptive') (where are good copy-editors when you need them?). This is an oversight and a downright shame, as Hicks has available to him the entire panoply of academia, inaccessible to most of us.
Nevertheless I did some checking in the sources to see to what extent Edward as Prince of Wales was visible or kept from sight. Not only did he preside in person over his own council at Ludlow, it seems he was always brought to Westminster for the Christmas festivities, and as he grew older there are other reports of his appearing in public with his father. Plenty of opportunity, one would think, for onlookers to notice if he had constant toothache or if he was unable to eat the same food as everyone else at meal-times.
This is still inconclusive, but other implications need to be considered. For example, experts have opined that a jaw so diseased, without antibiotics, could have resulted in an infection which could kill the owner. This potential must have been known to physicians of the time. So if the heir was at risk of a fatal infection, his parents would surely have taken steps to ensure the succession by preparing his younger brother for the responsibilities of kingship. However, it seems that young Richard, although given his own council, didn't preside over it but remained always at his mother's side, where presumably he had little opportunity to acquire the necessary knightly skills let alone those of government, arbitration, punishment, etc. All in all, my conclusion is that the evidence is weighted against Edward V's suffering from a chronic, potentially fatal disease.
The last piece of the jigsaw that I felt ought to be examined was whether the disease manifested in the jawbone might have been visible to the onlooker, and this I hoped to determine with the aid of computer-aided reconstruction. On the assumption that Tanner and Wright took a greater number of photographs than the few that appeared in the journal Archaeologia, I tracked them down to the library at Westminster Abbey. The long-held view that these gentlemen's methods were less than scientific was amply reinforced when I learned that no other photographs from other angles existed, nor any visual indication of scale or size.
I had to leave London so I ordered a set of photographic prints of the elder skull to be sent to a friend in England, and we determined a scale/size for the skull bones based on the measurements recorded in the article extrapolated to apply to average mediaeval-size skulls of pre-pubescent children. The scale/size is of little relevance to this exercise anyway, as all I wanted was an idea of the outer appearance of the jaw. Nevertheless the absence of this type of information serves to underline how little Tanner and Wright left us to go on.
Predictably enough, the 3D and 2D reconstruction experts we consulted told us we didn't have sufficient evidence without views from other angles. We made no mention of the possible identity of the skull's owner. Then my friend in England became overwhelmed with other problems, including moving house, and I've only recently ventured to take up the matter of the jawbone again. The photographs have now been submitted to an orthodontist for an opinion, which may, I fear, be as far as we can take it. However, if any member of this forum can offer any suggestions, or can recommend anyone who might be prepared to offer an opinion based on this meagre photographic evidence, I'd be very grateful.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
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
I've been told recently that Chapter 10 of "Maligned King" is still considered to be the most up-to-date analysis of the conundrum of the bones in the urn (that phrase sounds rather Sherlockian, doesn't it?). Pages 186-191 set out what little seems to be known of Edward's health and facial appearance. Mancini's contemporaneous description is probably the best and most reliable since he had access to the boy's physician John Argentine (Hicks seems to think Mancini might have seen the boy for himself, though he does not explain under what circumstances). Mancini makes no mention of the king's ill-health or any chronic disease such as is manifested in the preserved jawbone, which, had it existed, would certainly be important intelligence to report back to his patron. Certainly Mancini reported a degree of malaise or apprehension, or one might call it dread. So if he had learned of Edward's state of mind, and recounted it in order to engage his readers, he was a pretty poor reporter if he had not also discovered from Argentine that he suffered, poor child, from chronic pain in the jaw.
I couldn't find another facial description until I came to Michael Hicks's so-called biography of Edward V, where he is described as 'a very good-looking boy' (p. 137, no reference cited). Hicks does his best to duck the matter of the bones altogether, mentioning them only twice, and then with supreme equivocation. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him to investigate the 15th-century implications of the heir apparent's jaw being afflicted by osteitis or osteomyelitis (or, as Hicks calls him, the 'heir presumptive') (where are good copy-editors when you need them?). This is an oversight and a downright shame, as Hicks has available to him the entire panoply of academia, inaccessible to most of us.
Nevertheless I did some checking in the sources to see to what extent Edward as Prince of Wales was visible or kept from sight. Not only did he preside in person over his own council at Ludlow, it seems he was always brought to Westminster for the Christmas festivities, and as he grew older there are other reports of his appearing in public with his father. Plenty of opportunity, one would think, for onlookers to notice if he had constant toothache or if he was unable to eat the same food as everyone else at meal-times.
This is still inconclusive, but other implications need to be considered. For example, experts have opined that a jaw so diseased, without antibiotics, could have resulted in an infection which could kill the owner. This potential must have been known to physicians of the time. So if the heir was at risk of a fatal infection, his parents would surely have taken steps to ensure the succession by preparing his younger brother for the responsibilities of kingship. However, it seems that young Richard, although given his own council, didn't preside over it but remained always at his mother's side, where presumably he had little opportunity to acquire the necessary knightly skills let alone those of government, arbitration, punishment, etc. All in all, my conclusion is that the evidence is weighted against Edward V's suffering from a chronic, potentially fatal disease.
The last piece of the jigsaw that I felt ought to be examined was whether the disease manifested in the jawbone might have been visible to the onlooker, and this I hoped to determine with the aid of computer-aided reconstruction. On the assumption that Tanner and Wright took a greater number of photographs than the few that appeared in the journal Archaeologia, I tracked them down to the library at Westminster Abbey. The long-held view that these gentlemen's methods were less than scientific was amply reinforced when I learned that no other photographs from other angles existed, nor any visual indication of scale or size.
I had to leave London so I ordered a set of photographic prints of the elder skull to be sent to a friend in England, and we determined a scale/size for the skull bones based on the measurements recorded in the article extrapolated to apply to average mediaeval-size skulls of pre-pubescent children. The scale/size is of little relevance to this exercise anyway, as all I wanted was an idea of the outer appearance of the jaw. Nevertheless the absence of this type of information serves to underline how little Tanner and Wright left us to go on.
Predictably enough, the 3D and 2D reconstruction experts we consulted told us we didn't have sufficient evidence without views from other angles. We made no mention of the possible identity of the skull's owner. Then my friend in England became overwhelmed with other problems, including moving house, and I've only recently ventured to take up the matter of the jawbone again. The photographs have now been submitted to an orthodontist for an opinion, which may, I fear, be as far as we can take it. However, if any member of this forum can offer any suggestions, or can recommend anyone who might be prepared to offer an opinion based on this meagre photographic evidence, I'd be very grateful.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in my new discussion group?/Dangers of doctors
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
Re: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-21 20:18:30
Dear Annette,
> Predictably enough, the 3D and 2D reconstruction experts we consulted told us we didn't have sufficient evidence without views from other angles. We made no mention of the possible identity of the skull's owner. Then my friend in England became overwhelmed with other problems, including moving house, and I've only recently ventured to take up the matter of the jawbone again. The photographs have now been submitted to an orthodontist for an opinion, which may, I fear, be as far as we can take it. However, if any member of this forum can offer any suggestions, or can recommend anyone who might be prepared to offer an opinion based on this meagre photographic evidence, I'd be very grateful.
I have a friend in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. She's an eye-surgeon, but some of her pals are maxillary/dental. We love historical invesitigations, and would love to help!
I'll contact you off-group.
(BTW, I've ordered your book!)
best wishes,
Doc M
> Predictably enough, the 3D and 2D reconstruction experts we consulted told us we didn't have sufficient evidence without views from other angles. We made no mention of the possible identity of the skull's owner. Then my friend in England became overwhelmed with other problems, including moving house, and I've only recently ventured to take up the matter of the jawbone again. The photographs have now been submitted to an orthodontist for an opinion, which may, I fear, be as far as we can take it. However, if any member of this forum can offer any suggestions, or can recommend anyone who might be prepared to offer an opinion based on this meagre photographic evidence, I'd be very grateful.
I have a friend in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. She's an eye-surgeon, but some of her pals are maxillary/dental. We love historical invesitigations, and would love to help!
I'll contact you off-group.
(BTW, I've ordered your book!)
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-21 21:44:04
The main reason I've been suggesting other areas for investigation is to
see if there's a way to plant doubts about the bones so that the crown
may relent at least allow enough photographs of the skulls for
computerized facial reconstructions.
Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized. Do any
stained glass representations remain from originals that were created
during the princes lifetimes? It would be interesting if aging a
portrait of Richard (if one exists) ends up resembling that sketch of
Warbeck. Or if not of Richard, then Edward to see if there's possibly
any familial resemblance. Again, it wouldn't be conclusive, but perhaps
enough to instill some doubts.
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
see if there's a way to plant doubts about the bones so that the crown
may relent at least allow enough photographs of the skulls for
computerized facial reconstructions.
Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized. Do any
stained glass representations remain from originals that were created
during the princes lifetimes? It would be interesting if aging a
portrait of Richard (if one exists) ends up resembling that sketch of
Warbeck. Or if not of Richard, then Edward to see if there's possibly
any familial resemblance. Again, it wouldn't be conclusive, but perhaps
enough to instill some doubts.
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: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-21 22:41:04
Dear Joan,
> Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
> regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
> than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized.
Not true, if you've seen a lot of mediæval stained glass. Some figures are very standardised and can only be differentiated by their heraldry: it's much the same with a lot of brasses. The scale of stained-glass portraits is often quite small, which leads the features to be simplified in many cases.
best wishes,
Doc M
> Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
> regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
> than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized.
Not true, if you've seen a lot of mediæval stained glass. Some figures are very standardised and can only be differentiated by their heraldry: it's much the same with a lot of brasses. The scale of stained-glass portraits is often quite small, which leads the features to be simplified in many cases.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-22 10:34:13
Great news, Doc, we'll try to pursue this research on the jawbone. Thanks very much indeed for ordering my book, by the way, I need steady sales so the History Press will keep reprinting it! For any members in the USA reading this, it's strange that I regularly get messages from people who say they can't find it, though I know it is advertised by online booksellers and I understand the publishers still have about 500 in stock. I'm trying to track down the problem, which I think lies with the US distributors, Trafalgar Square. They list a number of other titles from the History Press, but "Maligned King" appears to be missing. Meanwhile if readers would like to assist in getting an alternative view of Richard III into more general circulation, it would be a great idea to order this, as well as other even-handed treatments (including Joan's book), at your local public/university library.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Edward V's jaw
Dear Annette,
> Predictably enough, the 3D and 2D reconstruction experts we consulted told us we didn't have sufficient evidence without views from other angles. We made no mention of the possible identity of the skull's owner. Then my friend in England became overwhelmed with other problems, including moving house, and I've only recently ventured to take up the matter of the jawbone again. The photographs have now been submitted to an orthodontist for an opinion, which may, I fear, be as far as we can take it. However, if any member of this forum can offer any suggestions, or can recommend anyone who might be prepared to offer an opinion based on this meagre photographic evidence, I'd be very grateful.
I have a friend in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. She's an eye-surgeon, but some of her pals are maxillary/dental. We love historical invesitigations, and would love to help!
I'll contact you off-group.
(BTW, I've ordered your book!)
best wishes,
Doc M
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Edward V's jaw
Dear Annette,
> Predictably enough, the 3D and 2D reconstruction experts we consulted told us we didn't have sufficient evidence without views from other angles. We made no mention of the possible identity of the skull's owner. Then my friend in England became overwhelmed with other problems, including moving house, and I've only recently ventured to take up the matter of the jawbone again. The photographs have now been submitted to an orthodontist for an opinion, which may, I fear, be as far as we can take it. However, if any member of this forum can offer any suggestions, or can recommend anyone who might be prepared to offer an opinion based on this meagre photographic evidence, I'd be very grateful.
I have a friend in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. She's an eye-surgeon, but some of her pals are maxillary/dental. We love historical invesitigations, and would love to help!
I'll contact you off-group.
(BTW, I've ordered your book!)
best wishes,
Doc M
Getting Books
2010-05-22 16:06:54
"Annette Carson" <ajcarson@...> wrote: "...For any members in the USA
reading this, it's strange that I regularly get messages from people who
say they can't find it, though I know it is advertised by online
booksellers and I understand the publishers still have about 500 in
stock. I'm trying to track down the problem, which I think lies with the
US distributors, Trafalgar Square. They list a number of other titles
from the History Press, but "Maligned King" appears to be missing.
Meanwhile if readers would like to assist in getting an alternative view
of Richard III into more general circulation, it would be a great idea
to order this, as well as other even-handed treatments (including Joan's
book), at your local public/university library."
Thank you for bringing this up, Annette. I know it would help me and any
other other a lot for folks to place a request with your local library
for our books. It won't cost a dime and it will make a big difference
for us.
Annette, I have found your book listed on The Book Depository
<http://www.bookdepository.com/> and on Amazon.com. In this instance,
I suspect that The Book Depository might be the better avenue. OTOH,
Amazon does list who the sellers are and provides contact information.
Maybe contact the sellers before trying to order the book? (Annette,
Beth from the E4Arsenic discussion group has let me know that she has
received a copy of the book.)
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
reading this, it's strange that I regularly get messages from people who
say they can't find it, though I know it is advertised by online
booksellers and I understand the publishers still have about 500 in
stock. I'm trying to track down the problem, which I think lies with the
US distributors, Trafalgar Square. They list a number of other titles
from the History Press, but "Maligned King" appears to be missing.
Meanwhile if readers would like to assist in getting an alternative view
of Richard III into more general circulation, it would be a great idea
to order this, as well as other even-handed treatments (including Joan's
book), at your local public/university library."
Thank you for bringing this up, Annette. I know it would help me and any
other other a lot for folks to place a request with your local library
for our books. It won't cost a dime and it will make a big difference
for us.
Annette, I have found your book listed on The Book Depository
<http://www.bookdepository.com/> and on Amazon.com. In this instance,
I suspect that The Book Depository might be the better avenue. OTOH,
Amazon does list who the sellers are and provides contact information.
Maybe contact the sellers before trying to order the book? (Annette,
Beth from the E4Arsenic discussion group has let me know that she has
received a copy of the book.)
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: portraiture and stained glass
2010-05-22 17:09:40
Further à propos portraits of the 2 boys:
The only decent-quality contemporary 'portraits' of the boys are stained glass, in the Canterbury window. However:
The King and Queen are drawn with some effort at portraiture, but the children are drawn as 'types', who look older than their years.
Some of the paint on the faces appears worn/faded in the reproductions I've seen.
The Little Malvern windows share similar problems.
Without good quality panel portraits, such as the Society of Antiquaries portraits of Edward IV and Richard III, there's not enough to build on. (And even with those, as copies – albeit good, early ones – of lost originals, there must remain a margin of copyist's error/licence.)
The portraits of Edward V done for some late 16-17C 'long gallery' series (for example, the one used on the postage stamp in the 'York and Lancaster' series) are based on Edward VI with a bit of costume-tweak. Delaroche and Millais are purely fanciful.
best wishes,
Doc M
The only decent-quality contemporary 'portraits' of the boys are stained glass, in the Canterbury window. However:
The King and Queen are drawn with some effort at portraiture, but the children are drawn as 'types', who look older than their years.
Some of the paint on the faces appears worn/faded in the reproductions I've seen.
The Little Malvern windows share similar problems.
Without good quality panel portraits, such as the Society of Antiquaries portraits of Edward IV and Richard III, there's not enough to build on. (And even with those, as copies – albeit good, early ones – of lost originals, there must remain a margin of copyist's error/licence.)
The portraits of Edward V done for some late 16-17C 'long gallery' series (for example, the one used on the postage stamp in the 'York and Lancaster' series) are based on Edward VI with a bit of costume-tweak. Delaroche and Millais are purely fanciful.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-22 18:19:32
Have you ever been to St.James' Church at Hadleigh? There is a wonderful Victorian stained glass window of Rowland Tayler, Rector of the town, who was burned in 1555.
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: Edward V's jaw
Dear Joan,
> Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
> regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
> than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized.
Not true, if you've seen a lot of mediæval stained glass. Some figures are very standardised and can only be differentiated by their heraldry: it's much the same with a lot of brasses. The scale of stained-glass portraits is often quite small, which leads the features to be simplified in many cases.
best wishes,
Doc M
----- Original Message -----
From: reginadespazas
To:
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: Edward V's jaw
Dear Joan,
> Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
> regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
> than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized.
Not true, if you've seen a lot of mediæval stained glass. Some figures are very standardised and can only be differentiated by their heraldry: it's much the same with a lot of brasses. The scale of stained-glass portraits is often quite small, which leads the features to be simplified in many cases.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Stained glass
2010-05-22 19:14:17
Dear Stephen,
> Have you ever been to St.James' Church at Hadleigh? There is a wonderful Victorian stained glass window of Rowland Tayler, Rector of the town, who was burned in 1555.
That's a Victorian window. Some of the 19C stained glass artists were adept at copying portraits from earlier paintings and (for modern subjects) photographs. See also some of the 19-20C windows which depict Richard (mostly based on the NPG portrait), Margaret Beaufort, Fisher, & c (all copied from familiar portraits).
This does not reflect the artistic conventions of 15C stained glass, however.
best wishes,
Doc M
> Have you ever been to St.James' Church at Hadleigh? There is a wonderful Victorian stained glass window of Rowland Tayler, Rector of the town, who was burned in 1555.
That's a Victorian window. Some of the 19C stained glass artists were adept at copying portraits from earlier paintings and (for modern subjects) photographs. See also some of the 19-20C windows which depict Richard (mostly based on the NPG portrait), Margaret Beaufort, Fisher, & c (all copied from familiar portraits).
This does not reflect the artistic conventions of 15C stained glass, however.
best wishes,
Doc M
Re: Edward V's jaw
2010-05-25 20:16:45
http://image53.webshots.com/553/1/86/4/2670186040094942475tmouxi_ph.jpg
But not a good angle, though you can see there are lots of daughters.
The boys get a section each.
I saw it last time I was in Canterbury. Despite having been brought
up a few miles away, and knowing that the window exists, I didn't
locate it until last year. It's a prime position, above The
Martyrdom. One website dates it as 1482.
At 21:41 21/05/2010, Joan wrote:
>Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
>regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
>than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized. Do any
>stained glass representations remain from originals that were created
>during the princes lifetimes? It would be interesting if aging a
>portrait of Richard (if one exists) ends up resembling that sketch of
>Warbeck. Or if not of Richard, then Edward to see if there's possibly
>any familial resemblance. Again, it wouldn't be conclusive, but perhaps
>enough to instill some doubts.
Best wishes
Christine
But not a good angle, though you can see there are lots of daughters.
The boys get a section each.
I saw it last time I was in Canterbury. Despite having been brought
up a few miles away, and knowing that the window exists, I didn't
locate it until last year. It's a prime position, above The
Martyrdom. One website dates it as 1482.
At 21:41 21/05/2010, Joan wrote:
>Interestingly, I was informed by a person who is an expert at aging and
>regressing photographs that stained glass images can be more reliable
>than oils because they were less likely to have been stylized. Do any
>stained glass representations remain from originals that were created
>during the princes lifetimes? It would be interesting if aging a
>portrait of Richard (if one exists) ends up resembling that sketch of
>Warbeck. Or if not of Richard, then Edward to see if there's possibly
>any familial resemblance. Again, it wouldn't be conclusive, but perhaps
>enough to instill some doubts.
Best wishes
Christine
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.