Re: Richard's wounds

Dear Annette,

> Marianne I feel the same way about his head wound meaning that he
> died very quickly.

I wonder if the arrow may have killed him first. Did it come in from
the front or back? If from the front, it may have gone through the
aorta as well as the spine.

Sorry haven't been communicative of late: I did get a regular day-
job, but it's been tough and my health has suffered. Am considering
my future.

best wishes,
Marianne

The arrowhead wasn't lodged in the spine, therefore it probably lay adjacent but loose, so I doubt whether one could deduce the trajectory. However, I gather it will provide useful evidence, for example it should be possible to analyse where the metal originated.
Glad to see you reappear on the forum!

----- Original Message -----
From: Dr M M Gilchrist
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's wounds



Dear Annette,

> Marianne I feel the same way about his head wound meaning that he
> died very quickly.

I wonder if the arrow may have killed him first. Did it come in from
the front or back? If from the front, it may have gone through the
aorta as well as the spine.

Sorry haven't been communicative of late: I did get a regular day-
job, but it's been tough and my health has suffered. Am considering
my future.

best wishes,
Marianne

I was wondering about that arrow. Richard would have worn full steel plate armour, and arrow heads of the time simply couldn't penetrate such defences.

Furthermore, all accounts agree that Richard died in a close quarters melee, so the arrow wound is difficult to explain. 

A crossbow bolt would be a different matter...


________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012, 19:06
Subject: Re: Richard's wounds


 
Dear Annette,

> Marianne I feel the same way about his head wound meaning that he
> died very quickly.

I wonder if the arrow may have killed him first. Did it come in from
the front or back? If from the front, it may have gone through the
aorta as well as the spine.

Sorry haven't been communicative of late: I did get a regular day-
job, but it's been tough and my health has suffered. Am considering
my future.

best wishes,
Marianne

Could it have been done post mortem?!

On 15 September 2012 18:54, david rayner <theblackprussian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I was wondering about that arrow. Richard would have worn full steel plate
> armour, and arrow heads of the time simply couldn't penetrate such defences.
>
> Furthermore, all accounts agree that Richard died in a close quarters
> melee, so the arrow wound is difficult to explain.
>
> A crossbow bolt would be a different matter...
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012, 19:06
> Subject: Re: Richard's wounds
>
>
>
> Dear Annette,
>
> > Marianne I feel the same way about his head wound meaning that he
> > died very quickly.
>
> I wonder if the arrow may have killed him first. Did it come in from
> the front or back? If from the front, it may have gone through the
> aorta as well as the spine.
>
> Sorry haven't been communicative of late: I did get a regular day-
> job, but it's been tough and my health has suffered. Am considering
> my future.
>
> best wishes,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
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>

They're saying "perimortem", which the dig director was careful to clarify means "in the process of the death of the subject". This would be simple for a trained forensic osteologist to determine from, say, the wounds to the skull. Whether the arrowhead was such a strike, rather than being postmortem, would be a bit more difficult to figure out, given that they said the arrowhead wasn't exactly buried in the vertebrae--I get the impression that the arrow wound may have been in the flesh near the vertebrae, but at time went on, the flesh itself disintegrated and the arrowhead and the vertebrae just kind of hung out together.

I do recall one commentator at the presser saying that the metal found was a "barbed arrowhead", which would fit with a crossbow bolt; however, someone up at the mic right after that said that the metal piece was "as yet unidentified". (Right, just go ahead and bring down the crowd, don't mind us.)

On another topic, back to the nephews (I really think calling them "princes" is a shade inflammatory, as they weren't by the time Richard took the throne). I'm starting to have the suspicion that Richard DID send them to safety someplace, possibly on the Continent, so that they wouldn't be used as pawns in a plot to re-take the throne and install one or the other as a puppet. This would have been a good move for the stability of Richard's regency, but might also have been a merciful thing to do for the boys, who had had a completely rotten 1483 and might have welcomed a quiet place to live.

The reason I think the boys were missing, rather than demonstrably dead, by the time Henry took the throne is how he reacted to the appearance of Lambert Simnel, the dude who claimed to be the once and future Edward V. Henry's response might well have been, "Right, and I'm my great-grandma's lame milk cow. Piffle, he ain't Eddie, just snuff the pretender and let's get back to our game of whist." Instead, Henry seems to have mobilized a squadron of spies to find out everything they could about Simnel--almost as though he thought there was some possibility the kid really was Edward.

Militating against this theory, of course, is the painstaking way Henry put together Titulus Regius, overturning the Act of Succession: would he really have done that if he wasn't absolutely certain the boys were dead? 'Cause negating the Act of Succession had just made the elder King of England.

If my theory is right, though, and the boys survived Bosworth and Henry's accession, and Elizabeth of York knew that they had, it might have made it easier to marry Henry rather than, you know, slitting her throat or leaping into a river with lead socks.

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Could it have been done post mortem?!
>
> On 15 September 2012 18:54, david rayner <theblackprussian@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I was wondering about that arrow. Richard would have worn full steel plate
> > armour, and arrow heads of the time simply couldn't penetrate such defences.
> >
> > Furthermore, all accounts agree that Richard died in a close quarters
> > melee, so the arrow wound is difficult to explain.
> >
> > A crossbow bolt would be a different matter...
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2012, 19:06
> > Subject: Re: Richard's wounds
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Annette,
> >
> > > Marianne I feel the same way about his head wound meaning that he
> > > died very quickly.
> >
> > I wonder if the arrow may have killed him first. Did it come in from
> > the front or back? If from the front, it may have gone through the
> > aorta as well as the spine.
> >
> > Sorry haven't been communicative of late: I did get a regular day-
> > job, but it's been tough and my health has suffered. Am considering
> > my future.
> >
> > best wishes,
> > Marianne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
>

<mcjohn@...> wrote:
><snip>
>
> Militating against this theory, of course, is the painstaking way Henry put together Titulus Regius, overturning the Act of Succession: would he really have done that if he wasn't absolutely certain the boys were dead? 'Cause negating the Act of Succession had just made the elder King of England. <snip>

Carol responds:

Henry didn't "put together" Titulus Regius. Richard's Parliament did that. It stated in elaborate terms all his qualifications for kingship. Henry, knowing that it validated Richard's claim (and simultaneously bastardized Elizabeth of York) ordered all copies of it burned. Fortunately for posterity, one survived.

On another note, I just found an article focusing on Richard and scoliosis. Those interested in the topic can find it here:

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm

Carol, who gave her chiropractor a copy of one of the better articles on the discovery and can't wait to hear his reaction

Oh, I thought the Act of Succession was the document that explained why Parliament wanted Richard to become king, and Titulus Regius was Henry's document overturning the Act of Succession. Have the historians decided that that's not the case?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> <mcjohn@> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> > Militating against this theory, of course, is the painstaking way Henry put together Titulus Regius, overturning the Act of Succession: would he really have done that if he wasn't absolutely certain the boys were dead? 'Cause negating the Act of Succession had just made the elder King of England. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Henry didn't "put together" Titulus Regius. Richard's Parliament did that. It stated in elaborate terms all his qualifications for kingship. Henry, knowing that it validated Richard's claim (and simultaneously bastardized Elizabeth of York) ordered all copies of it burned. Fortunately for posterity, one survived.
>
> On another note, I just found an article focusing on Richard and scoliosis. Those interested in the topic can find it here:
>
> http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.htm
>
> Carol, who gave her chiropractor a copy of one of the better articles on the discovery and can't wait to hear his reaction
>

<mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I thought the Act of Succession was the document that explained why Parliament wanted Richard to become king, and Titulus Regius was Henry's document overturning the Act of Succession. Have the historians decided that that's not the case?

Carol responds:

I'm unaware of any Act of Succession. Titulus Regius is the Act of Settlement (or the crown upon Richard), so it may be what you're calling the Act of Succession. It begins:

"Margin: An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Iffue, with a recapitulation of his Title.

"1. MEMORAND', quod quedam Billa exhibita fuit coram Dño Rege, in Parliamento predco, in hec verba.

"WHERE late heretofore, that is to fay, before the Confecracon, Coronacion, and Inthronizacion of oure Souveraign Lord the King Richard the Thirde, a Rolle of Perchement, conteignyng in writeing certeine Articles of the tenour undre writen, on the behalve and in the name of the thre Eftates of this Reame of Englond, that is to wite, of the Lords Spualls and Temporalls, and of the Comons, by many and diverfe Lords Spuells and Temporalls, and other Nobles and notable perfones of the Comons in grete multitude, was prefented and actualy delivered unto oure faid Souveraine Lord the King, to th'entent and effect expreffed at large in the fame Rolle; to the which Rolle, and to the Confideracions aud inftant Peticion comprized in the fame, our faid Souveraine Lord, for the public wele and tranquillite of this Land, benignely affented."

You can find the whole document on the website of the American branch of the Richard III Society at this link:

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/tit_reg.html

Here's an account of the document and its history that you may find interesting and informative:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm

Carol

Oh, quite so, thank you... I have GOT to start writing down where I see these things, there's too much misinformation as it is and I shouldn't be adding to it. Hey, thanks for the link--this is a terrific explanation, and one I hadn't seen before.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I thought the Act of Succession was the document that explained why Parliament wanted Richard to become king, and Titulus Regius was Henry's document overturning the Act of Succession. Have the historians decided that that's not the case?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I'm unaware of any Act of Succession. Titulus Regius is the Act of Settlement (or the crown upon Richard), so it may be what you're calling the Act of Succession. It begins:
>
> "Margin: An Act for the Settlement of the Crown upon the King and his Iffue, with a recapitulation of his Title.
>
> "1. MEMORAND', quod quedam Billa exhibita fuit coram Dño Rege, in Parliamento predco, in hec verba.
>
> "WHERE late heretofore, that is to fay, before the Confecracon, Coronacion, and Inthronizacion of oure Souveraign Lord the King Richard the Thirde, a Rolle of Perchement, conteignyng in writeing certeine Articles of the tenour undre writen, on the behalve and in the name of the thre Eftates of this Reame of Englond, that is to wite, of the Lords Spualls and Temporalls, and of the Comons, by many and diverfe Lords Spuells and Temporalls, and other Nobles and notable perfones of the Comons in grete multitude, was prefented and actualy delivered unto oure faid Souveraine Lord the King, to th'entent and effect expreffed at large in the fame Rolle; to the which Rolle, and to the Confideracions aud inftant Peticion comprized in the fame, our faid Souveraine Lord, for the public wele and tranquillite of this Land, benignely affented."
>
> You can find the whole document on the website of the American branch of the Richard III Society at this link:
>
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/texts/tit_reg.html
>
> Here's an account of the document and its history that you may find interesting and informative:
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~richardiii/Titulus%20Regius.htm
>
> Carol
>