Re Leicester Dig

While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.

Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.

Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.

Mary

I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
Paul

On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:

> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
>
> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
>
> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Paul, from the Brooklyn Contingent, and missing you horribly!

The scoliosis certainly isn't evidence at all, but I'll toss in two cents,
in Brooklyn fashion and say that Catherine the Great had scoliosis, and was
such an enthusiastic horseback rider that she designed a sort of prototype
coullotte skirt so she could ride astride instead of side-saddle as
demanded by Empress Elizabeth. I don't know much, if anything about
scoliosis, but maybe there's a question of degree and/or severity? In any
case, Catherine wasn't noted as being deformed in any way despite the
scoliosis, and so it's possible that Richard could have had scoliosis
without it deforming him to any real degree as well.

We just have to be patient and see what happens.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it
> could be Richard.
> You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a
> lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
> while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is
> good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> Paul
>
>
> On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
>
> > While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to
> say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far
> is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are
> quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his
> injuries.
> >
> > Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111
> Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> >
> > Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the
> real man not the Tudor myth.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

I've had a (strictly unofficial) comment from Leicester that the scoliosis
seen in this person would have been barely visible when clothed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


> Hi Paul, from the Brooklyn Contingent, and missing you horribly!
>
> The scoliosis certainly isn't evidence at all, but I'll toss in two cents,
> in Brooklyn fashion and say that Catherine the Great had scoliosis, and
> was
> such an enthusiastic horseback rider that she designed a sort of prototype
> coullotte skirt so she could ride astride instead of side-saddle as
> demanded by Empress Elizabeth. I don't know much, if anything about
> scoliosis, but maybe there's a question of degree and/or severity? In any
> case, Catherine wasn't noted as being deformed in any way despite the
> scoliosis, and so it's possible that Richard could have had scoliosis
> without it deforming him to any real degree as well.
>
> We just have to be patient and see what happens.
>
> Maria
> ejbronte@...
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it
>> could be Richard.
>> You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a
>> lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
>> while riding with a battle axe and sword.
>> Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is
>> good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
>>
>> > While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to
>> say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so
>> far
>> is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are
>> quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his
>> injuries.
>> >
>> > Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111
>> Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
>> >
>> > Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the
>> real man not the Tudor myth.
>> >
>> > Mary
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.

To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.

The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.

Jonathan



------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
>You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
>Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
>Paul
>
>On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
>
>> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
>>
>> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
>>
>> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

i have scoliosis and as a youth i rode horses, roped, branded and casterated cattle. i also competed in gymkhanas, including steer daubing..which is carrying a long pole dipped in whitewash. the goal is to smack a steer with it..and then raise the pole to completely upright position in a timed event. (very much like a joust) i can tell you that on a horse that is barreling along full tilt....this requires arm and back strength!! i never did any better than 3rd place. but then again as a "girl" i was competing against boys. i was the psuedo son in my family of all girls. i did lots of stuff that only boys did. at the age of 15 my father told me to quit beating boys, or i'd never get married.
 
i can not see any reason that richard as a young man trained in medieval combat, could not weild a battle axe or other bloodsport weapon on a combat field. the skelton found did not have so severe of scoliosis that it was noticeable when clothed. the hunchback rumour may have started with the naked display of his body.
 
richard's life was spent in training and honed for medieval military activity. the people of richard's era were not the mollycoddled sissies of our era.
 
quite simply you get past the pain and discomfort to do what you need to do; be it steer daubing or weilding a battle axe. winner's don't whine.
 
at the time of richard's demise, he was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders:
loss of child, wife and ruling a nation while dealing with planned and real insurgency. richard was quite the man and an extraordinary king!
 
i really do hope that the remains found are richard's. they will go a lonnng way to helping dispell the tudor propaganda of richard's era and ours.
 
roslyn
--- On Wed, 9/12/12, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:


From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To:
Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 12:14 PM


Hi Paul, from the Brooklyn Contingent, and missing you horribly!

The scoliosis certainly isn't evidence at all, but I'll toss in two cents,
in Brooklyn fashion and say that Catherine the Great had scoliosis, and was
such an enthusiastic horseback rider that she designed a sort of prototype
coullotte skirt so she could ride astride instead of side-saddle as
demanded by Empress Elizabeth.  I don't know much, if anything about
scoliosis, but maybe there's a question of degree and/or severity?  In any
case, Catherine wasn't noted as being deformed in any way despite the
scoliosis, and so it's possible that Richard could have had scoliosis
without it deforming him to any real degree as well.

We just have to be patient and see what happens.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it
> could be Richard.
> You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a
> lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
> while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is
> good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> Paul
>
>
> On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
>
> > While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to
> say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far
> is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are
> quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his
> injuries.
> >
> > Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111
> Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> >
> > Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the
> real man not the Tudor myth.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> 
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....

It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.

No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...

In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen





--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
>
> To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
>
> The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> >Paul
> >
> >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> >
> >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> >>
> >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> >>
> >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
>

I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.

Must keep the excitement at bay.

M



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 

As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....

It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.

No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...

In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
>
> To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
>
> The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> >Paul
> >
> >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> >
> >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> >>
> >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> >>
> >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm thinking that a large number of books will have to be reprinted with
corrections based on the finds...!

On 12 September 2012 14:23, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place
> found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
>
> It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher
> than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the
> remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in
> Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
>
> No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate
> to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered
> from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it
> stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have
> found galling...
>
> In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have
> no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos
> to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
>
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one
> shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's
> been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the
> euologising Kendall suggests it.
> >
> > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical
> perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who
> works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> >
> > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more
> significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with
> bodies - is striking.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means
> it could be Richard.
> > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a
> lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
> while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is
> good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > >
> > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to
> say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far
> is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are
> quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his
> injuries.
> > >>
> > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard
> 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > >>
> > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the
> real man not the Tudor myth.
> > >>
> > >> Mary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:

"......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."

It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....

Eileen

--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
>
> Must keep the excitement at bay.
>
> M
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
>
> As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
>
> It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
>
> No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
>
> In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> >
> > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> >
> > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > >
> > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > >>
> > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > >>
> > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > >>
> > >> Mary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi. I am so thrilled about this discovery and should it be proved would love to see anne, edward and his father given a christian burial in York Minister with a magnificent shrine to our last and much maligned king to die defending his crown and country. I don't post much even though I have studied and supported Richard since reading Josephine Tey forty years ago. But I really enjoy reading the very erudite posts and admire and have read the books and articles produced by many of you. Thank you so much for your perseverance and unwavering belief and let's pray that Richard can find peace and that people begin to recognise what a fundementally good person he was, a product of his times and not the monster of Shakespeare and Starkey - a horrible little man who makes me cringe. Take care and here's hoping. Coral. Oh on a postcript Fotheringay Church is very moving with its Yorkist roots
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:48:16
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.

To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.

The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.

Jonathan



------------------------------
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
>You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
>Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
>Paul
>
>On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
>
>> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
>>
>> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
>>
>> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>

Lisa.......Please let the first one be The tragedy of King Richard lll by that William Shakespeare person....:0)

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking that a large number of books will have to be reprinted with
> corrections based on the finds...!
>
> On 12 September 2012 14:23, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place
> > found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> >
> > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher
> > than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the
> > remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in
> > Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> >
> > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate
> > to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered
> > from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it
> > stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have
> > found galling...
> >
> > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have
> > no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos
> > to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one
> > shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's
> > been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the
> > euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > >
> > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical
> > perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who
> > works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > >
> > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more
> > significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with
> > bodies - is striking.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means
> > it could be Richard.
> > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a
> > lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
> > while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is
> > good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > >Paul
> > > >
> > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to
> > say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far
> > is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are
> > quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his
> > injuries.
> > > >>
> > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard
> > 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > >>
> > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the
> > real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mary
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

I don't know about other people but I feel a sense of awe that at last they could be Richard's remains. The information given, and the evidence so far presented, reinforces some long held beliefs and together with the location of the remains, appears to be where the body was thought to be.
It seems in some ways too good to be true although that is probably me veering on the side of caution and not daring to believe. But if true and they are indeed Richard's remains then something miraculous has been achieved and many people who have fought the fight but are no longer here today can feel vindicated at a sense of accomplishment which many of us still keep fighting to ensure justice is done.
BTW what do others think of the site of the peri-mortem injuries received, presumably in battle? I think they speak volumes as to the way the blows were delivered.
Elaine


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
>
> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
>
> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
>
> Mary
>

LOL - got my vote... the blog someone posted just before was fun she
said...'in your face Thomas More'.. I quite agree. Made me chuckle! Be sure
your sins will find you out - Saint or no Saint!

On 12 September 2012 15:22, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Lisa.......Please let the first one be The tragedy of King Richard lll by
> that William Shakespeare person....:0)
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking that a large number of books will have to be reprinted with
> > corrections based on the finds...!
> >
> > On 12 September 2012 14:23, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the
> place
> > > found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > >
> > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder
> higher
> > > than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the
> > > remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in
> > > Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > >
> > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not
> equate
> > > to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably,
> suffered
> > > from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never
> let it
> > > stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might
> have
> > > found galling...
> > >
> > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I
> have
> > > no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more
> kudos
> > > to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans
> <jmcevans98@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one
> > > shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something
> that's
> > > been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the
> > > euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > >
> > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of
> physical
> > > perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as
> someone who
> > > works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is
> more
> > > significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn
> with
> > > bodies - is striking.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis
> means
> > > it could be Richard.
> > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I
> know a
> > > lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
> > > while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it
> is
> > > good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > >Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful
> not to
> > > say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so
> far
> > > is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis
> are
> > > quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing
> his
> > > injuries.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the
> Richard
> > > 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at
> the
> > > real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mary
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Elaine....re your comment about the site of the injuries....Possibly he was on his knees have been shot with the arrow in the back when he received the awful blow to the back of his head....All to the back....too cowardly to take him on from the front....Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't know about other people but I feel a sense of awe that at last they could be Richard's remains. The information given, and the evidence so far presented, reinforces some long held beliefs and together with the location of the remains, appears to be where the body was thought to be.
> It seems in some ways too good to be true although that is probably me veering on the side of caution and not daring to believe. But if true and they are indeed Richard's remains then something miraculous has been achieved and many people who have fought the fight but are no longer here today can feel vindicated at a sense of accomplishment which many of us still keep fighting to ensure justice is done.
> BTW what do others think of the site of the peri-mortem injuries received, presumably in battle? I think they speak volumes as to the way the blows were delivered.
> Elaine
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> >
> > Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> >
> > Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> >
> > Mary
> >
>

Lol..Lisa...I am naughty but I was thinking more on lines of Up yours Morton...

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> LOL - got my vote... the blog someone posted just before was fun she
> said...'in your face Thomas More'.. I quite agree. Made me chuckle! Be sure
> your sins will find you out - Saint or no Saint!
>
> On 12 September 2012 15:22, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Lisa.......Please let the first one be The tragedy of King Richard lll by
> > that William Shakespeare person....:0)
> >
> > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm thinking that a large number of books will have to be reprinted with
> > > corrections based on the finds...!
> > >
> > > On 12 September 2012 14:23, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the
> > place
> > > > found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > >
> > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder
> > higher
> > > > than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the
> > > > remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in
> > > > Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > >
> > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not
> > equate
> > > > to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably,
> > suffered
> > > > from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never
> > let it
> > > > stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might
> > have
> > > > found galling...
> > > >
> > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I
> > have
> > > > no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more
> > kudos
> > > > to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans
> > <jmcevans98@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one
> > > > shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something
> > that's
> > > > been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the
> > > > euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > >
> > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of
> > physical
> > > > perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as
> > someone who
> > > > works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is
> > more
> > > > significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn
> > with
> > > > bodies - is striking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis
> > means
> > > > it could be Richard.
> > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I
> > know a
> > > > lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight
> > > > while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it
> > is
> > > > good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > >Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful
> > not to
> > > > say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so
> > far
> > > > is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis
> > are
> > > > quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing
> > his
> > > > injuries.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the
> > Richard
> > > > 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at
> > the
> > > > real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > <
> > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

ah yes that too! Fingers crossed...!

On 12 September 2012 15:28, b.eileen25 <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Lol..Lisa...I am naughty but I was thinking more on lines of Up yours
> Morton...
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > LOL - got my vote... the blog someone posted just before was fun she
> > said...'in your face Thomas More'.. I quite agree. Made me chuckle! Be
> sure
> > your sins will find you out - Saint or no Saint!
> >
> > On 12 September 2012 15:22, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Lisa.......Please let the first one be The tragedy of King Richard lll
> by
> > > that William Shakespeare person....:0)
> > >
> > > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking that a large number of books will have to be reprinted
> with
> > > > corrections based on the finds...!
> > > >
> > > > On 12 September 2012 14:23, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the
> > > place
> > > > > found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > >
> > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder
> > > higher
> > > > > than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent
> in the
> > > > > remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in
> > > > > Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not
> > > equate
> > > > > to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably,
> > > suffered
> > > > > from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never
> > > let it
> > > > > stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man
> might
> > > have
> > > > > found galling...
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and
> I
> > > have
> > > > > no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even
> more
> > > kudos
> > > > > to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans
> > > <jmcevans98@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea
> that one
> > > > > shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is
> something
> > > that's
> > > > > been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the
> > > > > euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of
> > > physical
> > > > > perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as
> > > someone who
> > > > > works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor
> propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma
> is
> > > more
> > > > > significant. The combination - in a very specific location not
> strewn
> > > with
> > > > > bodies - is striking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis
> > > means
> > > > > it could be Richard.
> > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I
> > > know a
> > > > > lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone
> fight
> > > > > while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so
> while it
> > > is
> > > > > good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful
> > > not to
> > > > > say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence
> given so
> > > far
> > > > > is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of
> scoliosis
> > > are
> > > > > quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were
> describing
> > > his
> > > > > injuries.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the
> > > Richard
> > > > > 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look
> at
> > > the
> > > > > real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lisa
> > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > >
> > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > > <
> > >
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > <
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
 
Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
 
However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 


________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.

Must keep the excitement at bay.

M

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 

As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....

It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.

No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...

In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
>
> To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
>
> The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> >Paul
> >
> >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> >
> >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> >>
> >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> >>
> >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> >>
> >> Mary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Marion and Eileen
Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.

I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
Elaine

--- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
>
> "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
>
> It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> >
> > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> >
> > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> >
> > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> >
> > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > >
> > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > >
> > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > >Paul
> > > >
> > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > >>
> > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > >>
> > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mary
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen


--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marion and Eileen
> Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
>
> I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> >
> > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> >
> > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > >
> > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > >
> > > M
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > >
> > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > >
> > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > >
> > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > >
> > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > >Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mary
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

<kathryn198@...> wrote:
<snip>
> BTW what do others think of the site of the peri-mortem injuries received, presumably in battle? I think they speak volumes as to the way the blows were delivered.
> Elaine

Carol responds:

Shot between the vertebrae with an arrow and cleaved in the back of the skull with a sharp implement? To me, those injuries show that William Stanley's men were afraid to fight Richard man to man, face to face. I have one word to add to Richard's own "Treason!" and that is "Cowards!"

Regarding his having one shoulder higher than the other, I always thought it was Rous's invention (along with Richard's being two years in his mother's womb) and played up with ironic glee by Sir Thomas More who, as I recall, also had one shoulder higher than the other. I wonder if the archaeologists weren't looking specifically for that supposed deformity. In any case, one of them, Professor Lin Foxhall, points out that the man despite the raised shoulder "was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle." Here's the link to that specific article (among the many that are hitting the Internet today): http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21526208/bones-found-england-may-belong-king-richard-iii

Carol, who suspects that the raised shoulder was barely visible



Carol

Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
>  
> Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
>  
> However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
>
> Must keep the excitement at bay.
>
> M
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
>
> As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
>
> It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
>
> No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
>
> In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> >
> > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> >
> > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > >
> > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > >>
> > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > >>
> > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > >>
> > >> Mary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello all,

I am a little late joining in with this as I only found out about the find about an hour ago when I checked out the forum, and have been wading through the posts since then. I don't know what to say - initially needing some persuasion until I watched the film of the press release. Then thunderstruck. I suppose I had expected a lot of burials in the church and so thought identifying the one most likely to be Richard's might be quite a challenge.
I know we shouldn't second-guess the results of the scientific investigations, BUT like a lot of you I find the combination of the injuries, the choir burial and the scoliosis very persuasive, and yes, Paul, I also find your insistence that Richard must have been physically perfect rather disturbing. To be fair, though, you are not prejudiced against people with `deformities' but rather afraid that if we give an inch to the Tudor version we shall end up giving a mile. Would I be right? But surely it is the truth of each little thing, with all its nuances, that matters. Serious historians won't say `Well Rous had the shoulder right so, although More had the wrong shoulder raised and there was no hunchback or limp, all the other Tudor charges must be true.'
I know this has been discussed before on the forum, and Rous is not most Ricardians' favourite person for obvious reasons, but as I suggested back then he almost certainly had seen Richard at close quarters, and if he was simply trying to invent hideous deformity as a slander he could surely have done better than a raised shoulder.
It is weird, isn't it, how many of us on this forum either have scoliosis or have a close family member with it? My father had a significantly raised right shoulder (and a limp). My left shoulder is raised and I too now have scoliosis in the neck and need to see a chiropractor.
As regards the injuries, I agree with you, Eileen. My immediate thought was – they got him from behind.... Setting aside feelings for a moment, though, does that perhaps suggest that it was indeed Sir William Stanley's men who got him and not Henry's French bodyguard?
IF the body is Richard's, of course. For me, if it can be shown to belong to the right period and to be a man of the right sort of age, then I am happy to go with it.
Well, well, well. I must admit I hadn't had much hope they would find him. Over the years the inaccessibility of Richard's remains had come to seem like one of those unalterable and eternal facts. Well bless my soul.
Marie

Well i didn't know that!  (A bit shameful actually as I used to be PA to a conservation architect who was until recently Surveyor of the Fabric at the Abbey and I used to work there once a week (mind you I only ever saw his office!)
 
 
Poor James


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
>  
> Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
>  
> However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
>
> Must keep the excitement at bay.
>
> M
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
>
> As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
>
> It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
>
> No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
>
> In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> >
> > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> >
> > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > >
> > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > >>
> > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > >>
> > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > >>
> > >> Mary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
 
a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
 
e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
 
further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
roslyn

--- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:


From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To:
Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM



 



Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
>  
> Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
>  
> However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
>
> Must keep the excitement at bay.
>
> M
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
>
> As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
>
> It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
>
> No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
>
> In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> >
> > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> >
> > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> >
> > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > >
> > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > >>
> > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > >>
> > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > >>
> > >> Mary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I believe the phrase y'all may be looking for is "Up Thine"?

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> ah yes that too! Fingers crossed...!
>
> On 12 September 2012 15:28, b.eileen25 <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Lol..Lisa...I am naughty but I was thinking more on lines of Up yours
> > Morton...
> >
> > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL - got my vote... the blog someone posted just before was fun she
> > > said...'in your face Thomas More'.. I quite agree. Made me chuckle! Be
> > sure
> > > your sins will find you out - Saint or no Saint!
> > >
> > > On 12 September 2012 15:22, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lisa.......Please let the first one be The tragedy of King Richard lll
> > by
> > > > that William Shakespeare person....:0)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> > > > Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking that a large number of books will have to be reprinted
> > with
> > > > > corrections based on the finds...!

I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board, whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.

(Of course, that and the thing about the constant threat of murder/deposition/imprisonment/execution. That would have stunk too.)

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
>  
> a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
>  
> e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
>  
> further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> >  
> > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> >  
> > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard?

On 12 Sep 2012, at 21:32, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> Paul, I also find your insistence that Richard must have been physically perfect rather disturbing. To be fair, though, you are not prejudiced against people with `deformities' but rather afraid that if we give an inch to the Tudor version we shall end up giving a mile. Would I be right?

You are right in the latter, give an inch, but not in the former, in that I am not saying that Richard was physically perfect. As for the scoliosis, see my later post.
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet!

Totally agree, they had not Richard's courage.
Christine


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig



 

<kathryn198@...> wrote:
<snip>
> BTW what do others think of the site of the peri-mortem injuries received, presumably in battle? I think they speak volumes as to the way the blows were delivered.
> Elaine

Carol responds:

Shot between the vertebrae with an arrow and cleaved in the back of the skull with a sharp implement? To me, those injuries show that William Stanley's men were afraid to fight Richard man to man, face to face. I have one word to add to Richard's own "Treason!" and that is "Cowards!"

Regarding his having one shoulder higher than the other, I always thought it was Rous's invention (along with Richard's being two years in his mother's womb) and played up with ironic glee by Sir Thomas More who, as I recall, also had one shoulder higher than the other. I wonder if the archaeologists weren't looking specifically for that supposed deformity. In any case, one of them, Professor Lin Foxhall, points out that the man despite the raised shoulder "was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle." Here's the link to that specific article (among the many that are hitting the Internet today): http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21526208/bones-found-england-may-belong-king-richard-iii

Carol, who suspects that the raised shoulder was barely visible

Carol

> Totally agree, they had not Richard's courage.

I wouldn't necessarily project that on to the circumstances.  We're probably looking at a melee with Richard assailed on all sides.  Certainly, the archer responsible for the arrowhead would have been an ordinary soldier fighting under the direction of his lord.  A little unfair to condemn him for lack of courage, when survival was probably all that was on his mind.  (Castigate Stanley as much as you like, but not his "poor bloody infantry".)


Jonathan



________________________________
From: C HOLMES <christineholmes651@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 9:57
Subject: Re: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
Totally agree, they had not Richard's courage.
Christine


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 20:47
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 

<kathryn198@...> wrote:
<snip>
> BTW what do others think of the site of the peri-mortem injuries received, presumably in battle? I think they speak volumes as to the way the blows were delivered.
> Elaine

Carol responds:

Shot between the vertebrae with an arrow and cleaved in the back of the skull with a sharp implement? To me, those injuries show that William Stanley's men were afraid to fight Richard man to man, face to face. I have one word to add to Richard's own "Treason!" and that is "Cowards!"

Regarding his having one shoulder higher than the other, I always thought it was Rous's invention (along with Richard's being two years in his mother's womb) and played up with ironic glee by Sir Thomas More who, as I recall, also had one shoulder higher than the other. I wonder if the archaeologists weren't looking specifically for that supposed deformity. In any case, one of them, Professor Lin Foxhall, points out that the man despite the raised shoulder "was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle." Here's the link to that specific article (among the many that are hitting the Internet today): http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21526208/bones-found-england-may-belong-king-richard-iii

Carol, who suspects that the raised shoulder was barely visible

Carol

Perhaps I'm beig unfair but I can't imagine any Tudor being that self aware

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 1:19
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board, whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.

(Of course, that and the thing about the constant threat of murder/deposition/imprisonment/execution. That would have stunk too.)

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
>  
> a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
>  
> e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
>  
> further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > à
> > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.à Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > à
> > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?à I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard?

Yes, it would be an absolutely outrageous breach of tradition and precedent for the Dean and Chapter to have to actually tell the truth for once.

--- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
>
> "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
>
> It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> >
> > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> >
> > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> >
> > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> >
> > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> >
> > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > >
> > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > >
> > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > >Paul
> > > >
> > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > >>
> > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > >>
> > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mary
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Quite right Liz. Elizabeth 1 was a Tudor first and foremost, and behaved like one a lot of the time. She only showed any sign of conscience at the execution of Mary Queen of Scots, something she soon got over! So I very much doubt she gave Richard much thought at all.
Paul

On 13 Sep 2012, at 10:33, liz williams wrote:

> Perhaps I'm beig unfair but I can't imagine any Tudor being that self aware
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 1:19
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>
> I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board, whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
>
> (Of course, that and the thing about the constant threat of murder/deposition/imprisonment/execution. That would have stunk too.)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
>> Â
>> a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
>> Â
>> e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
>> Â
>> further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
>> roslyn
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.ÃÂ Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
>>> ÃÂ
>>> However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?ÃÂ I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi Eileen
I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> >
> > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > >
> > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > >
> > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > >
> > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > >
> > > > M
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > >
> > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > >
> > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > >
> > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > >
> > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > >Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Elaine...that would be good...I have gleaned the information from my copy of Royal Tombs of Medieval England by Mark Duffy....
Its hard to know whether ir refers to a coffin found in a vault or buried in the ground....
Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen
> I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > >
> > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > >
> > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > >
> > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > >
> > > > > M
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > >
> > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!


From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
Hi Eileen
I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> >
> > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > >
> > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > >
> > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > >
> > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > >
> > > > M
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > >
> > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > >
> > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > >
> > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > >
> > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > >Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi,

I had sheldom been so interested and "touched" by a find of human remains. It´s strange that I discovered Richard III so late and only after several other people recommend this group to me. Since I joined in here I learned and discoverd so much fascinating facts. Finally I am through with the biography and have two (three) more books waiting...

About the scolisis, well I heard of dancers who had slight forms of this disease so there are cases in which they are hardly visuable. I think this might have been the case with Richard too as he didn´t earn a "nickname" before the Tudor propaganda. At least as far as I came with my studies yet.

have a good time everyone
Marion Z

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine...that would be good...I have gleaned the information from my copy of Royal Tombs of Medieval England by Mark Duffy....
> Its hard to know whether ir refers to a coffin found in a vault or buried in the ground....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eileen
> > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > >
> > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > >
> > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > >
> > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
>
>
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> Hi Eileen
> I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > >
> > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > >
> > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > >
> > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > >
> > > > > M
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > >
> > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Eileen

I started a post on these tombs in Westminster Abbey a couple of months ago. Just to recap - Dean Stanley, in the C19, explored the vaults at night and managed to move Mary, Queeen of Scots' tomb to descend into the vaults. Apparently, there were lead coffins scattered around and some stacked on top of each other. For example, Mary's coffin was beneath that of Arbella Stuart. It was she that had the strongest claim to the English throne through her father who was Darnley's brother. Their mother, Margaret Lennox being the daughter of Margaret Tudor from her second marriage.

James was no different to Elizabeth in that he kept relatives with a strong claim the throne, in this case, Arbella under close watch.
Elizabeth had kept her at Hardwick Hall for many years under the close watch of Bess of Hardwick, who was also Arbella's grandmother. She was allowed at court only towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, but was seen as a focus for anyone discontented with the present reign. Neither James nor Elizabeth wanted her to marry and produce a possible claimant to the throne.
In James' reign she was similarly treated, not allowed to marry, although she was given more of a role at court, attending to the Queen, Anne of Denmark. However she was kept short of money with a smallish allowance. Eventually she rebelled and married in secret William Seymour, who could claim descent from Henry's sister, Mary. She was captured and spent her last years in the Tower dying possibly of self-imposed starvation. She could also have suffered from porphyria, which could provide an clearer explanation of her illness and death.

Regarding the succession and Elizabeth's reaction to those who tried to raise the subject, Elizabeth was paranoid regarding any potential successor, as the case of Arbella shows and also previously with the sisters of Lady Jane Grey, (Catherine and Mary?).
However there were moves from courtiers who recognised her reign would end one day and wanted to be on the right side and in position for when Elizabeth died. Robert Cecil was the big winner and had entered into secret correspondence with James for many years, pouring poison into his ears metaphorically, thereby removing rivals. One of these was Raleigh whose career finished with Elizabeth's death thanks to Cecil's machinations. He was implicated in The Bye and Main Plots,
and spent many years in the Tower from 1603 and was eventually executed in 1618 on those same charges even though he had successfully defended himself. James was as vindictive and paranoid as his predecessors.
Elaine


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> >  
> > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> >  
> > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> >
> > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> >
> > M
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> >
> > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> >
> > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> >
> > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > >
> > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > >
> > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > >Paul
> > > >
> > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > >>
> > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > >>
> > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > >>
> > > >> Mary
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Would that be the Woodville line you were thinking of ?

I doubt if such a thought ever crossed her mind. I read recently that the idea of the "Tudors" as a dynasty, or even as a surname, was not something that most contemporaries thought about.

Anyway, separating from the Church of Rome, probably the most lasting effect of the Tudor period, was hardly damaging for England in the long term.

Richard G

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board,
> whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because
> she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her
> line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
>

Elaine...I am really interested in these Westminster Abbey burials...I will look up your posts as I wasnt posting on here a couple of months ago. I read a history of Mary Queen of Scots many years ago....and I have a recollection that she shared her vault with the coffins of the many children of Queen Anne...which seemed to me very touching....

Now that Richard has been found...I am 100% positive it is he...I would love to know where Queen Anne Neville is...The area is pretty much known...
"by the South dore that ledyth Into Seynt Edwardys Chapell" .. Stow recorded South of the Westminster Vestry and someone called Crull claimed her grave stood in the south choir aisle. Of course it is unlikely any new searches will ever be made as it stands now...they are certainly not ready for the bones in the urn to be re-examined....Now that is something which could really turn history on its head....Eileen
--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eileen
>
> I started a post on these tombs in Westminster Abbey a couple of months ago. Just to recap - Dean Stanley, in the C19, explored the vaults at night and managed to move Mary, Queeen of Scots' tomb to descend into the vaults. Apparently, there were lead coffins scattered around and some stacked on top of each other. For example, Mary's coffin was beneath that of Arbella Stuart. It was she that had the strongest claim to the English throne through her father who was Darnley's brother. Their mother, Margaret Lennox being the daughter of Margaret Tudor from her second marriage.
>
> James was no different to Elizabeth in that he kept relatives with a strong claim the throne, in this case, Arbella under close watch.
> Elizabeth had kept her at Hardwick Hall for many years under the close watch of Bess of Hardwick, who was also Arbella's grandmother. She was allowed at court only towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, but was seen as a focus for anyone discontented with the present reign. Neither James nor Elizabeth wanted her to marry and produce a possible claimant to the throne.
> In James' reign she was similarly treated, not allowed to marry, although she was given more of a role at court, attending to the Queen, Anne of Denmark. However she was kept short of money with a smallish allowance. Eventually she rebelled and married in secret William Seymour, who could claim descent from Henry's sister, Mary. She was captured and spent her last years in the Tower dying possibly of self-imposed starvation. She could also have suffered from porphyria, which could provide an clearer explanation of her illness and death.
>
> Regarding the succession and Elizabeth's reaction to those who tried to raise the subject, Elizabeth was paranoid regarding any potential successor, as the case of Arbella shows and also previously with the sisters of Lady Jane Grey, (Catherine and Mary?).
> However there were moves from courtiers who recognised her reign would end one day and wanted to be on the right side and in position for when Elizabeth died. Robert Cecil was the big winner and had entered into secret correspondence with James for many years, pouring poison into his ears metaphorically, thereby removing rivals. One of these was Raleigh whose career finished with Elizabeth's death thanks to Cecil's machinations. He was implicated in The Bye and Main Plots,
> and spent many years in the Tower from 1603 and was eventually executed in 1618 on those same charges even though he had successfully defended himself. James was as vindictive and paranoid as his predecessors.
> Elaine
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > >  
> > > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > >  
> > > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > >
> > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > >
> > > M
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > >
> > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > >
> > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > >
> > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > >
> > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > >
> > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > >Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Mary
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

What a tragedy though that they felt it necessary to destroy some of the most beautiful buildings that this country ever had in the process....To wander about their ruins is absolutely heartbreaking....Eileen


--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, separating from the Church of Rome, probably the most lasting effect of the Tudor period, was hardly damaging for England in the long term.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board,
> > whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because
> > she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her
> > line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
> >
>

Eileen - The description of where Anne's tomb was situated fits in with where the plaque is today.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> Elaine...I am really interested in these Westminster Abbey burials...I will look up your posts as I wasnt posting on here a couple of months ago. I read a history of Mary Queen of Scots many years ago....and I have a recollection that she shared her vault with the coffins of the many children of Queen Anne...which seemed to me very touching....
>
> Now that Richard has been found...I am 100% positive it is he...I would love to know where Queen Anne Neville is...The area is pretty much known...
> "by the South dore that ledyth Into Seynt Edwardys Chapell" .. Stow recorded South of the Westminster Vestry and someone called Crull claimed her grave stood in the south choir aisle. Of course it is unlikely any new searches will ever be made as it stands now...they are certainly not ready for the bones in the urn to be re-examined....Now that is something which could really turn history on its head....Eileen
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eileen
> >
> > I started a post on these tombs in Westminster Abbey a couple of months ago. Just to recap - Dean Stanley, in the C19, explored the vaults at night and managed to move Mary, Queeen of Scots' tomb to descend into the vaults. Apparently, there were lead coffins scattered around and some stacked on top of each other. For example, Mary's coffin was beneath that of Arbella Stuart. It was she that had the strongest claim to the English throne through her father who was Darnley's brother. Their mother, Margaret Lennox being the daughter of Margaret Tudor from her second marriage.
> >
> > James was no different to Elizabeth in that he kept relatives with a strong claim the throne, in this case, Arbella under close watch.
> > Elizabeth had kept her at Hardwick Hall for many years under the close watch of Bess of Hardwick, who was also Arbella's grandmother. She was allowed at court only towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, but was seen as a focus for anyone discontented with the present reign. Neither James nor Elizabeth wanted her to marry and produce a possible claimant to the throne.
> > In James' reign she was similarly treated, not allowed to marry, although she was given more of a role at court, attending to the Queen, Anne of Denmark. However she was kept short of money with a smallish allowance. Eventually she rebelled and married in secret William Seymour, who could claim descent from Henry's sister, Mary. She was captured and spent her last years in the Tower dying possibly of self-imposed starvation. She could also have suffered from porphyria, which could provide an clearer explanation of her illness and death.
> >
> > Regarding the succession and Elizabeth's reaction to those who tried to raise the subject, Elizabeth was paranoid regarding any potential successor, as the case of Arbella shows and also previously with the sisters of Lady Jane Grey, (Catherine and Mary?).
> > However there were moves from courtiers who recognised her reign would end one day and wanted to be on the right side and in position for when Elizabeth died. Robert Cecil was the big winner and had entered into secret correspondence with James for many years, pouring poison into his ears metaphorically, thereby removing rivals. One of these was Raleigh whose career finished with Elizabeth's death thanks to Cecil's machinations. He was implicated in The Bye and Main Plots,
> > and spent many years in the Tower from 1603 and was eventually executed in 1618 on those same charges even though he had successfully defended himself. James was as vindictive and paranoid as his predecessors.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > > >  
> > > > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > > >  
> > > > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > >
> > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > >
> > > > M
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > >
> > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > >
> > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > >
> > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > >
> > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > >Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Elaine...I've stood in front of that plaque and felt quite weepy....
Could you please let me know the Topic your postings regarding the Abbey were posted...I would be most interested...I am astonished sometimes at what you can find out from this message board....Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eileen - The description of where Anne's tomb was situated fits in with where the plaque is today.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Elaine...I am really interested in these Westminster Abbey burials...I will look up your posts as I wasnt posting on here a couple of months ago. I read a history of Mary Queen of Scots many years ago....and I have a recollection that she shared her vault with the coffins of the many children of Queen Anne...which seemed to me very touching....
> >
> > Now that Richard has been found...I am 100% positive it is he...I would love to know where Queen Anne Neville is...The area is pretty much known...
> > "by the South dore that ledyth Into Seynt Edwardys Chapell" .. Stow recorded South of the Westminster Vestry and someone called Crull claimed her grave stood in the south choir aisle. Of course it is unlikely any new searches will ever be made as it stands now...they are certainly not ready for the bones in the urn to be re-examined....Now that is something which could really turn history on its head....Eileen
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Eileen
> > >
> > > I started a post on these tombs in Westminster Abbey a couple of months ago. Just to recap - Dean Stanley, in the C19, explored the vaults at night and managed to move Mary, Queeen of Scots' tomb to descend into the vaults. Apparently, there were lead coffins scattered around and some stacked on top of each other. For example, Mary's coffin was beneath that of Arbella Stuart. It was she that had the strongest claim to the English throne through her father who was Darnley's brother. Their mother, Margaret Lennox being the daughter of Margaret Tudor from her second marriage.
> > >
> > > James was no different to Elizabeth in that he kept relatives with a strong claim the throne, in this case, Arbella under close watch.
> > > Elizabeth had kept her at Hardwick Hall for many years under the close watch of Bess of Hardwick, who was also Arbella's grandmother. She was allowed at court only towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, but was seen as a focus for anyone discontented with the present reign. Neither James nor Elizabeth wanted her to marry and produce a possible claimant to the throne.
> > > In James' reign she was similarly treated, not allowed to marry, although she was given more of a role at court, attending to the Queen, Anne of Denmark. However she was kept short of money with a smallish allowance. Eventually she rebelled and married in secret William Seymour, who could claim descent from Henry's sister, Mary. She was captured and spent her last years in the Tower dying possibly of self-imposed starvation. She could also have suffered from porphyria, which could provide an clearer explanation of her illness and death.
> > >
> > > Regarding the succession and Elizabeth's reaction to those who tried to raise the subject, Elizabeth was paranoid regarding any potential successor, as the case of Arbella shows and also previously with the sisters of Lady Jane Grey, (Catherine and Mary?).
> > > However there were moves from courtiers who recognised her reign would end one day and wanted to be on the right side and in position for when Elizabeth died. Robert Cecil was the big winner and had entered into secret correspondence with James for many years, pouring poison into his ears metaphorically, thereby removing rivals. One of these was Raleigh whose career finished with Elizabeth's death thanks to Cecil's machinations. He was implicated in The Bye and Main Plots,
> > > and spent many years in the Tower from 1603 and was eventually executed in 1618 on those same charges even though he had successfully defended himself. James was as vindictive and paranoid as his predecessors.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > > > >  
> > > > > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > > > >  
> > > > > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard? 
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@>
> > > > > To: "" <>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:30
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > >
> > > > > M
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > >
> > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen, John
Elizabeth's motivation was unlikely to be so self-sacrificing. She felt she had the same divine right as her forebears. The myth of Gloriana/Fairie Queen/ Mother of the nation stems from several factors and this undoubtedly held sway over any pressure to marry. Burghley constantly urged her to marry and produce an heir however; she used marriage as another political weapon/ploy to manipulate both her people and as foreign policy. If she had married that would have ended; as she would have been tied into another country's policies and diluted her own power. Also, when married it would have been difficult for her to be independent politically and her husband would have expected her to defer to his wishes, something she would never have accepted. Phillip of Spain (her late sister's husband) offered himself as a husband amongst others. She skilfully managed to keep all at bay by playing a game of possibilities even into late middle age when her suitor was a young man.
Furthermore, when you consider her parents, then her personality and character makes sense. Ann Boleyn had power to bewitch men but her only power came through Henry and once she lost that she was disposed of. Henry, on the other hand, had unlimited power to control and destroy whomever he wished. Elizabeth combined both aspects and after hat happened to her mother, she was never going to put herself into a possible position of weakness through marrying. In that respect, she was Henry with the absolute power of an autocratic ruler.

The cult of Gloriana etc was closely manipulated and controlled and she was the absolute figurehead for England. She was England. This aura was further enhanced by the adoption of the Protestant religion whereby she was the substitute for the Virgin Mary.
Elaine


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> What a tragedy though that they felt it necessary to destroy some of the most beautiful buildings that this country ever had in the process....To wander about their ruins is absolutely heartbreaking....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyway, separating from the Church of Rome, probably the most lasting effect of the Tudor period, was hardly damaging for England in the long term.
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board,
> > > whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because
> > > she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her
> > > line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
> > >
> >
>

No.

Although she might have deemed the self-extinguishing of her line preferable to a) a foreign marriage divisive to her allies, or b) a domestic marriage divisive to her nobility.

Cheers!

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board, whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
>
> (Of course, that and the thing about the constant threat of murder/deposition/imprisonment/execution. That would have stunk too.)
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
> >  
> > a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
> >  
> > e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
> >  
> > further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > To:
> > Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > >  
> > > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > >  
> > > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard?
>

So many questions,  I know I have to be patient and wait for the lab results, but.....
 
Does anyone know if removing the feet of the dead was a common practice in the 15th cen. or do you think it had something to do with Richard in particular?
Vickie

From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
No.

Although she might have deemed the self-extinguishing of her line preferable to a) a foreign marriage divisive to her allies, or b) a domestic marriage divisive to her nobility.

Cheers!

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board, whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
>
> (Of course, that and the thing about the constant threat of murder/deposition/imprisonment/execution. That would have stunk too.)
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
> >  
> > a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
> >  
> > e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
> >  
> > further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
> > roslyn
> >
> > --- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > > à
> > > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.à Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > > à
> > > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?à I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard?
>

Elaine that is a great analysis of Elizabeth's motives. I suppose it fits as well with the Tudor "divine right of Kings" which caused so much misery under the Stuarts. Perhaps she inherited her grandfather's delusions of grandeur. A fellow society member once remarked that she thought that if Elizabeth was alive today she would have had a social worker. I suppose that we have to admit that she did have a dreadful childhood, in one way or another, and that it is entirely feasibe that she was trying to prove to her father that she was as good as any son he might have had.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, John
> Elizabeth's motivation was unlikely to be so self-sacrificing. She felt she had the same divine right as her forebears. The myth of Gloriana/Fairie Queen/ Mother of the nation stems from several factors and this undoubtedly held sway over any pressure to marry. Burghley constantly urged her to marry and produce an heir however; she used marriage as another political weapon/ploy to manipulate both her people and as foreign policy. If she had married that would have ended; as she would have been tied into another country's policies and diluted her own power. Also, when married it would have been difficult for her to be independent politically and her husband would have expected her to defer to his wishes, something she would never have accepted. Phillip of Spain (her late sister's husband) offered himself as a husband amongst others. She skilfully managed to keep all at bay by playing a game of possibilities even into late middle age when her suitor was a young man.
> Furthermore, when you consider her parents, then her personality and character makes sense. Ann Boleyn had power to bewitch men but her only power came through Henry and once she lost that she was disposed of. Henry, on the other hand, had unlimited power to control and destroy whomever he wished. Elizabeth combined both aspects and after hat happened to her mother, she was never going to put herself into a possible position of weakness through marrying. In that respect, she was Henry with the absolute power of an autocratic ruler.
>
> The cult of Gloriana etc was closely manipulated and controlled and she was the absolute figurehead for England. She was England. This aura was further enhanced by the adoption of the Protestant religion whereby she was the substitute for the Virgin Mary.
> Elaine
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > What a tragedy though that they felt it necessary to destroy some of the most beautiful buildings that this country ever had in the process....To wander about their ruins is absolutely heartbreaking....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, separating from the Church of Rome, probably the most lasting effect of the Tudor period, was hardly damaging for England in the long term.
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board,
> > > > whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because
> > > > she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her
> > > > line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 


From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 

Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
>
>
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> Hi Eileen
> I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > >
> > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > >
> > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > >
> > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.à I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.à The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.à If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.à But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.à Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > >
> > > > > M
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > à
> > > > >
> > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > >
> > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > >
> > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > >
> > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Your right Vickie...it would be very interesting to find out how tall Richard was...

As to the feet...I dont have a clue...!

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> So many questions,  I know I have to be patient and wait for the lab results, but.....
>  
> Does anyone know if removing the feet of the dead was a common practice in the 15th cen. or do you think it had something to do with Richard in particular?
> Vickie
>
> From: blancsanglier1452 <blancsanglier1452@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> No.
>
> Although she might have deemed the self-extinguishing of her line preferable to a) a foreign marriage divisive to her allies, or b) a domestic marriage divisive to her nobility.
>
> Cheers!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board, whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
> >
> > (Of course, that and the thing about the constant threat of murder/deposition/imprisonment/execution. That would have stunk too.)
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >
> > > could james i have been buried with his great grandparents to demonstrate that he was a "tudor" king, and not just some scottish import. his grandmother, margret was h7 and e of y. there were other descendants of h7 and e of y, who also had a strong claim to the throne, however they were female.
> > >  
> > > a public display of connecting the stuart line to the tudor's *could have been done* to intercept any potential claims via a female line. i haven't really studied or researched j1 or his era to know if there were "challenges" to any great degree to his "right" to the throne.
> > >  
> > > e1's failure to designate her heir gave cecil the opportunity to proclaim that she told him she wanted james on the throne. the poor woman could not talk in her last remaining days. yet cecil stated she whispered to him her heir. prior to that e1 had made it illegal to discuss who would inherit the throne.
> > >  
> > > further, although not as deadly to her regal claimants, e1 did disempower contemporary claimants by wealth, imprisonment and/or death.
> > > roslyn
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 9/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Received: Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 3:47 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Liz....Astonishingly....James l is in the same tomb as Henry and Elizabeth of York.....Whether they did this to punish him for some misdemeanour or merely to save money I know not....thought you might like to know....:0)
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Personally I wouldn't want him buried anywhere near Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tydder.
> > > >  
> > > > Yorkminster seems most appropriate but on a selfish note, it would be easier for me to get to Leicester.  Also because it is in the Midlands it would allow people from both ends of the UK to get there.
> > > >  
> > > > However, what happens if the DNA is inconclusive?  I presume both bodies will be buried but where if they can't prove it is Richard?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....

I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
>
> Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> >
> >
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> > Hi Eileen
> > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > >
> > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > >
> > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > >
> > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

So many people have been lost or misplaced. All of the Nevills at Bisham
have disappeared, no-one can find Archbishop Nevill's burial place in York
Minster, Anne Nevill, of course, at Wesminster, and, as you say, Edward of
Middleham. And so many more. Ceremonial disposal of the dead is one of the
hallmarks of humanity and I think we feel a collective discomfort at the
thought of bodies either not properly buried or tombs disturbed and remains
scattered or lost.

Karen

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:38:50 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig






Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and
they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....

I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was
buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen

Reply to sender
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%2
0Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%20Leicester%20Dig> | Reply to group
<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%20Leicester%20Dig> | Reply via web post
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxdjdt
MWxnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzE1
MzAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzU1MDczMw--?act=reply&messageNum=15
301> | Start a New Topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcXRq
czViBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzU1MDczMw-->

Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/15209;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2ajRmbmRnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzE1MzAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzU1MDczMwR0cGNJZAMxNTIwOQ-
-> (51)

Recent Activity:
* New Members
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY
nBpcjZqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNDc1NTA3MzM-?o=6> 7
* New Photos
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYTc
4amFsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNDc1NTA3MzM-> 1

Visit Your Group
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMzJkc2FrB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM0NzU1MDczMw-->


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNDRldmdiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzQ3NTUwNzMz>
Switch to: Text-Only
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change
Delivery Format: Traditional> , Daily Digest
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email
Delivery: Digest> € Unsubscribe
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> € Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>





.

I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
>
> I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > >
> > >
> > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Hi Eileen
> > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

Hi Louise,
That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
Marie
P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.







>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> >
> > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
 
okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
 
i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
 
the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
 


--- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To:
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM



 





--- In , "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

Hi Louise,
That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
Marie
P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.

>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> >
> > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).à I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.

By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.


________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
 
okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
 
i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
 
the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
 

--- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To:
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM

 

--- In , "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

Hi Louise,
That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
Marie
P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.

>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> >
> > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).à I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

David, as a Williams I will second that comment!  (I am however appalled at the thought that some of my ancestors may have supported Tudor.)


________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:21
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.

By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.

________________________________
From: fayre rose <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
 
okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
 
i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
 
the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
 

--- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

Hi Louise,
That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
Marie
P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.

>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> >
> > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).à I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I would think that if Richard's feet had been deliberately cut off it would have been mentioned along with the other injuries referred to by contemporaries. I'm still puzzled about him being buried in Greyfriars. I take the point that Tudor would have needed to exhibit him but this was usually done by sticking the head up on a high building or bridge for everyone to see. For a display of dead Richard to be truly effective – he would have been exhibited either in York or London – not quietly buried in Leicester.
Richard is alleged to have murdered the princes to usurp the throne. But why leave other claimants - Lady Margaret Beaufort and his nephew the Earl of Warwick unmolested. Granted Warwick was stripped of his claim to the throne by Edward IV but leaving these potentially troublesome people unharmed is not the act of a murderer who wants to hold power at all costs.
Louise



--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
>  
> okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
>  
> i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>  
> given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
>  
> the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
>  
>
>
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> >
> > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
>
> Hi Louise,
> That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> Marie
> P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
>
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > >
> > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.ÃÆ'‚  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.ÃÆ'‚  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.ÃÆ'‚  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.ÃÆ'‚  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.ÃÆ'‚  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

as a descendent of a welsh man, and irish woman, and english, plus scots..oh and some north american native and a dab of german with a smidgeon of swiss and a dash of french, oh hecky thump there might even be a dollop of african in the mix too..i am proud to be a mongrel with almost full representation at the united nations. i haven't found any hint of any asian culture in the bloodline..but i suppose my kids or grandkids might just interbreed.
 
but, mostly..i am canadian with a rich american (pre DAR/SAR) ancestry that eventually mixed with my United Empire Loyalist ancestry who then bred with direct from the old country english.
 
who'da thunk it..a red headed-blue-eyed sans freckles female could ever make an error by referring to celtic-anglo-saxon cum normans as brits in the 15th C. my sincere apologies..i'll rush right out and try to wash the ignorance out of my adorable little head.

--- On Thu, 9/13/12, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:


From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To: "" <>
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 4:49 PM



 



David, as a Williams I will second that comment!  (I am however appalled at the thought that some of my ancestors may have supported Tudor.)

________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:21
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig

 
It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.

By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.

________________________________
From: fayre rose <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig

 
warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
 
okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
 
i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
 
the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
 

--- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

Hi Louise,
That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
Marie
P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.

>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> >
> > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).à I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Oh God....you dont think they chopped the feet off because the grave was not the right length...








--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
>
> By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
>  
> okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
>  
> i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>  
> given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
>  
> the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
>
>  
>
> --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> >
> > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
>
> Hi Louise,
> That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> Marie
> P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
>
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > >
> > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.ÃÆ'‚  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.ÃÆ'‚  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.ÃÆ'‚  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.ÃÆ'‚  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.ÃÆ'‚  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm probably thinking about the tendancy of Americans (OK, Hollywood) to use the term "British" as a derogatory term for English.
I've even read about Americans cheering for the Scots in Braveheart as they heroically defeat the "British" army.

Like most modern Brits I'm a mongrel with bits from all the "home" nations, and maybe a dash of Asian blood on my mother's side, but I still wince when people use the terms British and English indifferently as though they're the same thing. Remember that in the 15th century the English and Welsh were not supposed to interbreed. Not a bad idea: if this had been properly enforced we'd never have had the Tudors...




________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 22:03
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
as a descendent of a welsh man, and irish woman, and english, plus scots..oh and some north american native and a dab of german with a smidgeon of swiss and a dash of french, oh hecky thump there might even be a dollop of african in the mix too..i am proud to be a mongrel with almost full representation at the united nations. i haven't found any hint of any asian culture in the bloodline..but i suppose my kids or grandkids might just interbreed.
 
but, mostly..i am canadian with a rich american (pre DAR/SAR) ancestry that eventually mixed with my United Empire Loyalist ancestry who then bred with direct from the old country english.
 
who'da thunk it..a red headed-blue-eyed sans freckles female could ever make an error by referring to celtic-anglo-saxon cum normans as brits in the 15th C. my sincere apologies..i'll rush right out and try to wash the ignorance out of my adorable little head.

--- On Thu, 9/13/12, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To: "" <>
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 4:49 PM

 

David, as a Williams I will second that comment!  (I am however appalled at the thought that some of my ancestors may have supported Tudor.)

________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:21
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig

 
It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.

By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.

________________________________
From: fayre rose <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig

 
warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
 
okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
 
i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
 
given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
 
the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
 

--- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM

 

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.

Hi Louise,
That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
Marie
P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.

>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> >
> > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).à I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

somehow, i doubt that. but it would be interesting to know in which direction the richard skelton's head was pointing. there are some christian superstitions about which way a body is buried is indicitive of the victim's perceived life/ethics/beliefs.

i think someone responded logically that the skelton's feet could have been "broken" off over the years by above ground activity.
 
btw, aside from the living descendent of richard's older sister anne, will the dna testing include any known contemporary relatives..i.e. his sisters or brothers or nephew/neices who died in the 15th or 16thC?
 
the reason i ask this..is we always know who the mother is, but the father might be an actual unknown. i'm not sure if the living descendent is from a direct female line or if the descendency crosses back and forth between the genders.
 
it would be interesting to compare george, e4 and richard's dna. that might just answer was e4 the son of archer.
 
roslyn
--- On Thu, 9/13/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:


From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To:
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 5:09 PM



 



Oh God....you dont think they chopped the feet off because the grave was not the right length...

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
>
> By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
>  
> okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
>  
> i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>  
> given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
>  
> the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
>
>  
>
> --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> >
> > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
>
> Hi Louise,
> That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> Marie
> P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
>
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > >
> > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.à My memory is appalling.à
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > >
> > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theÃ’â¬aàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentÃ’â¬aàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).Ã’â¬aà I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I thought they could only identify DNA matches in the direct male or female line.

The only ways I can see them doing that are:

1. comparing with samples taken from close relatives at the time, i.e. Richard's siblings and parents; or direct male ancestors.

2. comparing with known living direct line descendants: as far as I'm aware the only extant Plantagenets in the male line are the Dukes of Beaufort:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Beaufort%c2%a0


That is the present Duke of Beaufort should have the same patrilinear DNA as Richard.

The matrilinear line would have to come through either Richards sister's direct female to female descendents (are there any?), or those traced in the female line from his mother's mother or grandmother and so on; much more unlikely that such a person can be traced.





________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 22:52
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig


 
somehow, i doubt that. but it would be interesting to know in which direction the richard skelton's head was pointing. there are some christian superstitions about which way a body is buried is indicitive of the victim's perceived life/ethics/beliefs.

i think someone responded logically that the skelton's feet could have been "broken" off over the years by above ground activity.
 
btw, aside from the living descendent of richard's older sister anne, will the dna testing include any known contemporary relatives..i.e. his sisters or brothers or nephew/neices who died in the 15th or 16thC?
 
the reason i ask this..is we always know who the mother is, but the father might be an actual unknown. i'm not sure if the living descendent is from a direct female line or if the descendency crosses back and forth between the genders.
 
it would be interesting to compare george, e4 and richard's dna. that might just answer was e4 the son of archer.
 
roslyn
--- On Thu, 9/13/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
To:
Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 5:09 PM

 

Oh God....you dont think they chopped the feet off because the grave was not the right length...

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
>
> By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
>  
> okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
>  
> i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>  
> given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
>  
> the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
>
>  
>
> --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> >
> > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
>
> Hi Louise,
> That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> Marie
> P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
>
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > >
> > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.à My memory is appalling.à
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > >
> > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theÃ’â¬aàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentÃ’â¬aàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).Ã’â¬aà I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thought-provoking commentary, all, and I thank you for considering the question. I'm not sure if it's wishful thinking, projecting an insight most monarchs couldn't afford to develop on a ruler less able to put aside ruthlessness than most, or wild extrapolation about Elizabeth's character from her guilt over the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots and... oh, you know, those guys who wanted to assassinate her and ended up convicted and sentenced to a gruesome, drawn-out death and she said, "Oh, ugh, for God's sake, just hang them already!" (You remember. THOSE guys.)

As sharing was in neither the job description nor the recorded character of a monarch who set her maids scrambling every time her gown shed a couple more quarts of pearls, it would seem likely that a reluctance to share the throne explains her spinsterhood much better than a baseless surmise about something for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence in the historical record.

Still and all, I wish ONE of the Tudors had OCCASIONALLY exhibited some fragment of basic decency.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine that is a great analysis of Elizabeth's motives. I suppose it fits as well with the Tudor "divine right of Kings" which caused so much misery under the Stuarts. Perhaps she inherited her grandfather's delusions of grandeur. A fellow society member once remarked that she thought that if Elizabeth was alive today she would have had a social worker. I suppose that we have to admit that she did have a dreadful childhood, in one way or another, and that it is entirely feasibe that she was trying to prove to her father that she was as good as any son he might have had.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, John
> > Elizabeth's motivation was unlikely to be so self-sacrificing. She felt she had the same divine right as her forebears. The myth of Gloriana/Fairie Queen/ Mother of the nation stems from several factors and this undoubtedly held sway over any pressure to marry. Burghley constantly urged her to marry and produce an heir however; she used marriage as another political weapon/ploy to manipulate both her people and as foreign policy. If she had married that would have ended; as she would have been tied into another country's policies and diluted her own power. Also, when married it would have been difficult for her to be independent politically and her husband would have expected her to defer to his wishes, something she would never have accepted. Phillip of Spain (her late sister's husband) offered himself as a husband amongst others. She skilfully managed to keep all at bay by playing a game of possibilities even into late middle age when her suitor was a young man.
> > Furthermore, when you consider her parents, then her personality and character makes sense. Ann Boleyn had power to bewitch men but her only power came through Henry and once she lost that she was disposed of. Henry, on the other hand, had unlimited power to control and destroy whomever he wished. Elizabeth combined both aspects and after hat happened to her mother, she was never going to put herself into a possible position of weakness through marrying. In that respect, she was Henry with the absolute power of an autocratic ruler.
> >
> > The cult of Gloriana etc was closely manipulated and controlled and she was the absolute figurehead for England. She was England. This aura was further enhanced by the adoption of the Protestant religion whereby she was the substitute for the Virgin Mary.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > What a tragedy though that they felt it necessary to destroy some of the most beautiful buildings that this country ever had in the process....To wander about their ruins is absolutely heartbreaking....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, separating from the Church of Rome, probably the most lasting effect of the Tudor period, was hardly damaging for England in the long term.
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board,
> > > > > whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because
> > > > > she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her
> > > > > line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

From what Dr. King, the geneticist, said in the press conference yesterday, they try to match mitochondrial DNA ("mtDNA") first, for two reasons: one, there's a hell of a lot of it, and two, it tends to persist unchanged through generations, much like a well-crafted garment holds its shape despite repeated washings. (I must work on my metaphors.) It is vastly easier to trace mtDNA matrilineally, which is why Dr. Ashdown-Hill thoughtfully asked Mrs. Ibsen, the previously introduced 16th great-niece, for a swab. She is, unfortunately, unable to join us in this plane of existence to watch the dig and oblige any wild-eyed researcher toting a Q-tip, but her son, Michael, has given a DNA sample that will be used for the comparison. Because he's male, it's likely that any DNA comparison may be complicated by apparent mismatches; I gather, from reading comments about DNA testing, that this is the kind of thing you can deal with as a DNA-typing pro, but it's tricky and laypersons tend to use it as an excuse to claim there's not match at all.

As far as the lack of feet, the only thing I've heard so far that might explain it is Dr. Buckley's comment that there were some Victorian-era foundations "within a few centimeters" of the burial. He didn't say if that was near the skull or near the feet (they did remark that they could tell the body had not been moved since its interment, which was unexpectedly comforting to me). However, since it's beginning to look as though the discovery of the burial happened a lot sooner than the public knew about, I would imagine there are some nice little tidbits of info they aren't able to share just yet. Could be they have a theory about the missing feet, but they want to take some calipers to the area and caption a photo or two before saying anything.

I think everybody on the dig has earned a KEWL 4 LIFE badge. This must be so thrilling to work on! For their next project, I vote they dig up St. Thomas the Truth-Challenged and slap him bowlegged.

Oh, by the way, if y'all can find the vid the University of Leicester posted on YouTube on Thursday, it's a nice interview with Dr. Buckley and some tantalizingly fuzzed-out video of the osteoarcheologists examining the remains, which they are doing with expertise and reverence.


--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I thought they could only identify DNA matches in the direct male or female line.
>
> The only ways I can see them doing that are:
>
> 1. comparing with samples taken from close relatives at the time, i.e. Richard's siblings and parents; or direct male ancestors.
>
> 2. comparing with known living direct line descendants: as far as I'm aware the only extant Plantagenets in the male line are the Dukes of Beaufort:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Beaufort%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> That is the present Duke of Beaufort should have the same patrilinear DNA as Richard.
>
> The matrilinear line would have to come through either Richards sister's direct female to female descendents (are there any?), or those traced in the female line from his mother's mother or grandmother and so on; much more unlikely that such a person can be traced.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 22:52
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> somehow, i doubt that. but it would be interesting to know in which direction the richard skelton's head was pointing. there are some christian superstitions about which way a body is buried is indicitive of the victim's perceived life/ethics/beliefs.
>
> i think someone responded logically that the skelton's feet could have been "broken" off over the years by above ground activity.
>  
> btw, aside from the living descendent of richard's older sister anne, will the dna testing include any known contemporary relatives..i.e. his sisters or brothers or nephew/neices who died in the 15th or 16thC?
>  
> the reason i ask this..is we always know who the mother is, but the father might be an actual unknown. i'm not sure if the living descendent is from a direct female line or if the descendency crosses back and forth between the genders.
>  
> it would be interesting to compare george, e4 and richard's dna. that might just answer was e4 the son of archer.
>  
> roslyn
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 5:09 PM
>
>  
>
> Oh God....you dont think they chopped the feet off because the grave was not the right length...
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
> >
> > By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> > warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
> >  
> > okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
> >  
> > i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
> >  
> > given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
> >  
> > the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
> >  
> >
> > --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > To:
> > Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
> >
> >  
> >
> > --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
> >
> > Hi Louise,
> > That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> > Marie
> > P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > > >
> > > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theÃÆ'‚ then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentÃÆ'‚ they must have used ground penetrating radar?).ÃÆ'‚  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Richard was an anointed King - unlike his father, or Llewellyn ap Gruffydd, whose heads were put on display - even to the Tydder this may have still counted for something, requiring him to arrange a proper burial. As far as the proof-of-death is concerned, a few days on display in Leicester would be sufficient to confirm to anyone interested, especially as the chances of any pretender coming forward to impersonate such a widely-known person would have been slim.

Richard G

--- In , "Louise" <louise@...> wrote:
>
> I'm still puzzled about him being buried in Greyfriars. I take the point that Tudor would have needed to exhibit him but this was usually done by sticking the head up on a high building or bridge for everyone to see. For a display of dead Richard to be truly effective – he would have been exhibited either in York or London – not quietly buried in Leicester.

But in the long term many lost their lives, including a queen, innocent of anything, a few churchmen and women and lots of ordinary people simply because they believed something slightly different to their neighbours. On top of which there was a wholesale destruction of church property, ornaments, artworks and buildings. In the long term it led to religious discord, rebellion, and bloodshed from then up to the present day in Scotland, parts of northern England, and especially Ireland.
Paul

On 13 Sep 2012, at 14:27, EileenB wrote:

>
> What a tragedy though that they felt it necessary to destroy some of the most beautiful buildings that this country ever had in the process....To wander about their ruins is absolutely heartbreaking....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anyway, separating from the Church of Rome, probably the most lasting effect of the Tudor period, was hardly damaging for England in the long term.
>>
>> Richard G
>>
>> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been wondering, since my time on this most excellent board,
>>> whether the reason Elizabeth I never married and had kids was because
>>> she was completely cognizant of the astonishing amount of damage her
>>> line had done to the country and decided it ended with her.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

"Remember that in the 15th century the English and Welsh were not supposed to interbreed."

Hadn't heard that one before. In earlier days the daughters of both King John and Simon de Montfort married Princes of Gwynedd. Or did that rule come in after the conquest in 1282 ?

Mention of North American ignorance of the make-up of the UK reminds me of when I was in Canada and was asked if Britain was a province of England :-(

Richard G

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'm probably thinking about the tendancy of Americans (OK, Hollywood) to use the term "British" as a derogatory term for English.
> I've even read about Americans cheering for the Scots in Braveheart as they heroically defeat the "British" army.
>
> Like most modern Brits I'm a mongrel with bits from all the "home" nations, and maybe a dash of Asian blood on my mother's side, but I still wince when people use the terms British and English indifferently as though they're the same thing. Remember that in the 15th century the English and Welsh were not supposed to interbreed. Not a bad idea: if this had been properly enforced we'd never have had the Tudors...
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 22:03
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> as a descendent of a welsh man, and irish woman, and english, plus scots..oh and some north american native and a dab of german with a smidgeon of swiss and a dash of french, oh hecky thump there might even be a dollop of african in the mix too..i am proud to be a mongrel with almost full representation at the united nations. i haven't found any hint of any asian culture in the bloodline..but i suppose my kids or grandkids might just interbreed.
>  
> but, mostly..i am canadian with a rich american (pre DAR/SAR) ancestry that eventually mixed with my United Empire Loyalist ancestry who then bred with direct from the old country english.
>  
> who'da thunk it..a red headed-blue-eyed sans freckles female could ever make an error by referring to celtic-anglo-saxon cum normans as brits in the 15th C. my sincere apologies..i'll rush right out and try to wash the ignorance out of my adorable little head.
>
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To: "" <>
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 4:49 PM
>
>  
>
> David, as a Williams I will second that comment!  (I am however appalled at the thought that some of my ancestors may have supported Tudor.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:21
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>  
> It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
>
> By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <mailto:fayreroze%40yahoo.ca>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>  
> warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
>  
> okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
>  
> i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>  
> given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
>  
> the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
>  
>
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
>
>  
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> >
> > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
>
> Hi Louise,
> That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> Marie
> P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
>
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > >
> > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by the then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recent they must have used ground penetrating radar?).  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.ÃÆ'‚  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.ÃÆ'‚  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.ÃÆ'‚  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.ÃÆ'‚  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.ÃÆ'‚  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

According to Thursday's Times, Michael Ibsen (whose DNA they are using) is the 17th generation nephew of Richard, his late mother being a direct descendant in the female line of Anne of York, Richard's sister. The line dies out with the current generation as Ibsen's sister has no children.

Curiously, Michael Ibsen was a Ricardian before he was made aware of his family link.

Richard G

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I thought they could only identify DNA matches in the direct male or female line.
>
> The only ways I can see them doing that are:
>
> 1. comparing with samples taken from close relatives at the time, i.e. Richard's siblings and parents; or direct male ancestors.
>
> 2. comparing with known living direct line descendants: as far as I'm aware the only extant Plantagenets in the male line are the Dukes of Beaufort:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Beaufort%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> That is the present Duke of Beaufort should have the same patrilinear DNA as Richard.
>
> The matrilinear line would have to come through either Richards sister's direct female to female descendents (are there any?), or those traced in the female line from his mother's mother or grandmother and so on; much more unlikely that such a person can be traced.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 22:52
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>
>
>  
> somehow, i doubt that. but it would be interesting to know in which direction the richard skelton's head was pointing. there are some christian superstitions about which way a body is buried is indicitive of the victim's perceived life/ethics/beliefs.
>
> i think someone responded logically that the skelton's feet could have been "broken" off over the years by above ground activity.
>  
> btw, aside from the living descendent of richard's older sister anne, will the dna testing include any known contemporary relatives..i.e. his sisters or brothers or nephew/neices who died in the 15th or 16thC?
>  
> the reason i ask this..is we always know who the mother is, but the father might be an actual unknown. i'm not sure if the living descendent is from a direct female line or if the descendency crosses back and forth between the genders.
>  
> it would be interesting to compare george, e4 and richard's dna. that might just answer was e4 the son of archer.
>  
> roslyn
> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> To:
> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 5:09 PM
>
>  
>
> Oh God....you dont think they chopped the feet off because the grave was not the right length...
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
> >
> > By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> >
> >
> >  
> > warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
> >  
> > okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
> >  
> > i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
> >  
> > given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
> >  
> > the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
> >  
> >
> > --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > To:
> > Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
> >
> >  
> >
> > --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
> > > I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
> >
> > Hi Louise,
> > That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
> > Marie
> > P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
> >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
> > > >
> > > > I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.  My memory is appalling. 
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theÃÆ'‚ then archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentÃÆ'‚ they must have used ground penetrating radar?).ÃÆ'‚  I can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > Hi Eileen
> > > > > > I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Marion and Eileen
> > > > > > > > Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
> > > > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  I know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  The media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  If the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  But that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  Just to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Must keep the excitement at bay.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > M
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > >You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
> > > > > > > > > > > >Paul
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Mary
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liten folks. The person in this grave was buried in a place only someone of noble birth would have been buried. Ordinary people were not buried in the choir of any church. So as they were burying someone important, be it King Richard or not, and I sincerely hope it is, they were burying him with some honour and would not cut off any part of his body for any reason. I go with the idea that later building work was the reason.
Paul

On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:09, EileenB wrote:

> Oh God....you dont think they chopped the feet off because the grave was not the right length...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>>
>> It was standard practice for dead nobles to be stripped of their armour, which was worth many times the annual income of even a rich knight. Perhaps bodies tended to be dismembered in the fight to plunder them.
>>
>> By the way, please do not confuse "Brits" with "English". The Welsh are the native Britons.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 20:09
>> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>>
>>
>> Â
>> warning.. graphic details might disturb some readers...
>> Â
>> okay..with my disgusting morbid medieval mind the thought came to mind when i first read that the "richard skelton" was missing feet was..were his feet cut out from under him during the battle? an arrow to the back, an axe to the head once down. but, prior to the arrow and axe did some tudor toadie take a low blow with intent to amputate richard's legs/feet.
>> Â
>> i've tried googling..cut the feet out from under him to see if i could find the origin of the phrase, or even..he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>> Â
>> given that tudor had several welsh fighters working for him, my mind flies back to reading about owain glydwr and the results of the battlefield where the dead english soldiers were mutilated by the battle's victors. the genitals of the brits were cut off and stuffed in their mouths. this battle was less than 100 years previous. hand to hand combat and combat in general was a no holds barred event. the goal was to do in your enemy before he could do you in...and it didn't matter how you did it!
>> Â
>> the medieval battlefield was incredibly violent. the teaparty events we are shown with reinactors would have our richard wetting his pants in laughter. children of his era fought with more dignity and veracity.
>> Â
>>
>> --- On Thu, 9/13/12, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>> To:
>> Received: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 2:08 PM
>>
>> Â
>>
>> --- In , "Louise" <louise@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have scoliosis and I think Richard's armour might supported his back . Scoliosis can be uncomfortable and painful but it wouldn't have prevented Richard from being able to ride a horse.
>>> I'm curious though why Henry Tudor would have had him buried in Greyfriars - usually conquering rulers left the remains of the defeated monarch on the field of battle. This happened on a number of occasions with the Scots.
>>
>> Hi Louise,
>> That never happened to the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, partly because the wiinning side needed to be able to display the body - or at least the head - to the populace to prove they really were dead and so put a stop to further conflict. York's head was displayed over the gates of York. Warwick's body was displayed in London before going off for burial. Edward of Lancaster was buried in Tewkesbury Abbey. Henry VI (okay, not killed in battle) was also displayed in London. Richard's body was displayed in Leicester. I think a chancer like Tudor needed to everyone to be clear that Richard was dead and not fled to fight another day before he came knocking on the gates of London or trying to organise a coronation.
>> Marie
>> P.S. To pick up the query about the feet - I've never heard of foot removal as a practice. I wonder if the feet may have got accidentally chopped off when the church was demolished, or (ironically) have got in the way of the foundations of Rober Herrick's memorial pillar. Perhaps we shall learn more later.
>>
>>>
>>> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Frustrating eh? Why didnt they keep better records...or maybe they did and they have been destroyed somewhere along the line....
>>>>
>>>> I cannot believe that the whereabouts of where Edward of Middleham was buried have been lost...:0/ Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Must have been but I honestly can't remember much except there were several bodies in different places.ÃÂ My memory is appalling.ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:45
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Liz...I presume that burials were in the ground and not a vault?
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember when I was working at the abbey seing a report by theÃ’â¬aàthen archaeologist, showing several burials (I think since it was recentÃ’â¬aàthey must have used ground penetrating radar?).Ã’â¬aàI can't remember the details - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 13:00
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>>>>>> Hi Eileen
>>>>>> I'll follow that up and see if I can out anything else.
>>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Elaine.....In 1866 they found a lead coffin south of the high altar but it was not disturbed. They did not know whether it belonged to Queen Anne Neville or another Anne, Anne of Cleves who was also buried south of the altar....Eileen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Marion and Eileen
>>>>>>>> Having spoken to guides at Westminster Abbey to find out the exact location of Anne Neville's remains, they do not know where she is buried. This would make it nigh on impossible for them to be buried together. There is a plaque opposite the Henry VII chapel but no tomb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not see why Leicester Cathedral is not appropriate as he has always been highly thought of in Leicester and they have done a lot in terms of trying to rehabilitate his reputation. Better to be where you are wanted and revered. York Minster would be fitting also.
>>>>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "b.eileen25" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Marion...I doubt very much the Abbey authorities would want that...It wouldnt tie in with the wording on the Urn where the 'bones' of the Princes are....which clearly states that:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "......these brothers being confined in the Tower and there stiffled with Pillows, were privately and meanly buried by order of their perfidious Uncle Richard the usurper...."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would mean that they would have to do something about it....and I dont see much chance of that....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I cannot find words to describe the feeling that at long last the remains of Richard III may have been found.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàI know that it is early days but having been interested in him since 1968 its a big thing.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàThe media was I found off putting, again the story of the princes, etc, but if it is him he should have a proper reburial with a tomb fit for a king.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàIf the Queen will allow in Westminster Abbey alongside his Queen.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàBut that is a long way off and we know doubt will have another fight on our hands over that one.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàJust to let people know my mother has a curved spine, she is not a hunchback it is barely visable to anyone who does know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Must keep the excitement at bay.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>>>>>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 18:23
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re Leicester Dig
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As soon as I heard about the scolisis, the dreadful wounds and the place found, the choir, I just knew this is Richard.....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It had already been said that Richard 'probably' had one shoulder higher than the other.....When this ties in with the condition apparent in the remains you just know...yes...this is how it was and of course in Shakespeares hands this became a great big deforming hump.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No I am not falling for Tudor lies because this condition does not equate to deformity...but it equates for me into someone who, probably, suffered from backache all his life but because of his great tenacity, never let it stop him from engaging in the activities that a fully abled man might have found galling...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact now I know for sure that Richard had this condition... and I have no doubt this is Richard....I just have to say...Richard....even more kudos to you that I had before...which is saying something...Eileen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My mother has scoliosis and she's not deformed. But the idea that one shoulder might have been a little higher than the other is something that's been mooted by a number of moderate historians. I think even the euologising Kendall suggests it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To accept that Richard may not have been an absolute model of physical perfection (a distasteful concept in itself - and I say that as someone who works for a disability charity) is hardly falling for Tudor propaganda.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The finding of scoliosis is interesting. The battlefield trauma is more significant. The combination - in a very specific location not strewn with bodies - is striking.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 17:05 BST Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I don't get why people are buying into the scoliosis means it could be Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are surely believing the Tudor myth that he was deformed! I know a lady with that disease. No way could she ride a horse, let alone fight while riding with a battle axe and sword.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many people will have been buried in the Abbey grounds, so while it is good to find a body, I cannot believe it is Richard.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 Sep 2012, at 12:03, ricard1an wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the team at Leicester University were being very careful not to say that it was Richard 111 that they had found, the evidence given so far is very promising. The battle injuries and the presence of scoliosis are quite positive. I must admit to some tears when they were describing his injuries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philippa Langley, John Ashdown Hill, Annette Carson and the Richard 111 Society have worked miracles to bring this about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very pleased that Philippa was stressing that we need to look at the real man not the Tudor myth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!