Grey Friars Dig

i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.

Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered arm')and a sideways kink in the back.

I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.

Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier. After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties and back pain even if they were riding.

As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be appreciated.

Hi Victoria - See my comments on scoliosis in my response to Johanne. If you look back in recent postings to this forum you will also see that many members and their family members have scoliosis themselves. We had one strapping New Zealander at the dig who told us that he also suffered from scoliosis, but he was well muscled and it was neither visible nor a handicap.
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: victoriaowen406
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:41 AM
Subject: Grey Friars Dig



i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.

Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered arm')and a sideways kink in the back.

I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.

Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier. After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties and back pain even if they were riding.

As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be appreciated.

-"victoriaowen406" wrote:
<snip>
>
> Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
>
Carol responds:

The investigators have made clear that the skeleton does not have a withered arm (or a hunchback or a limp, the last invented by Shakespeare). Lin Foxhall calls him "strong and active." I seem to recall reading that his arms and legs were well formed. The only visible evidence of the scoliosis would be a raised shoulder. No one in his lifetime--or even in the Tudor sources--ever mentioned breathing difficulties.

No one, of course, doubts that Richard was a strong and active soldier as well as a brave one. How else could he have killed Sir John Cheney?

Carol

The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated, stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.

A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?

Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and believing in nothing!


--- In , "victoriaowen406" <victoriaowen406@...> wrote:
>
> i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
>
> Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
>
> I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
>
> Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier. After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties and back pain even if they were riding.
>
> As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be appreciated.
>

You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
& check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
accurate up to date information... The human remains are being handled by
University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html


Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
that's entirely up to the individual...


On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>
> A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
>
> Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> believing in nothing!
>
> --- In , "victoriaowen406"
> <victoriaowen406@...> wrote:
> >
> > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> >
> > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> >
> > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> >
> > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> and back pain even if they were riding.
> >
> > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> appreciated.
> >
>
>
>



--
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>

But that begs the question, popular/unpopular with whom?

To draw a modern parallel, Mrs Thatcher was popular in the South of England and the USA, much less popular in the North of England, Scotland and Wales, and positively hated in the Yorkshire coalfield. One person, many reactions.

Richard seems to have been loved most by those who knew him best, the people of the North, especially Yorkshire. Many of these people it should be noted were former Lancastrians/Neville supporters, not 'Yorkists' in the long-term sense of the word. That fact is interesting in itself.

It has to be remembered that Richard had little following in the South. He had gone out of his way to sell or exchange most of the southern properties he had in order to consolidate his power north of Trent. South of Trent he was overly reliant on the Howards and Lovell, and had to import northerners to keep a lid on things after the 1483 Buckingham rebellion. Like Cromwell's use of the Major Generals this was not popular with the local powers-that-be as it cut across their hereditary influence and family networks.

Brian W.

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote: (snipped)
>
> The man at the Leicester Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated, stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>
>

The so called experts didn't put to bed the question of the so-called Edward V bones during the 1930s. If you read postings on this website – if you've got the time – many people claim the bones found in the Tower in the 17th century as varying: pig bones, Roman, anyone… despite the age, location and velvet clothing being right.

Brian is of course right. I believed in Father Christmas when I was eight flying through the sky with his aerobatic reindeer and no doubt Richard had his supporters. But they certainly weren't enough to prevent his ignominious fate. In fact, he was a victim of fate: incompetent, unscrupulous relatives…where have I heard that before? Too many to say.


--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
> & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> accurate up to date information... The human remains are being handled by
> University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
>
>
> Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...
>
>
> On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> >
> > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > believing in nothing!
> >
> > --- In , "victoriaowen406"
> > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > >
> > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > >
> > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > >
> > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> > appreciated.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
>

The technology at that time is not what it is now... Annette gave a
comprehensive update on how the remains are being professionally handled. &
how do you know the age location & velvet are 'right' (esp location!) See
yesterdays emails on More & digging a hole under the foundations in 1 night
without anyone noticing is unrealistic. Those are not facts they are
hearsay... try to stick to the proven facts...


On 20 September 2012 11:19, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The so called experts didn't put to bed the question of the so-called
> Edward V bones during the 1930s. If you read postings on this website ý if
> you've got the time ý many people claim the bones found in the Tower in the
> 17th century as varying: pig bones, Roman, anyoneý despite the age,
> location and velvet clothing being right.
>
> Brian is of course right. I believed in Father Christmas when I was eight
> flying through the sky with his aerobatic reindeer and no doubt Richard had
> his supporters. But they certainly weren't enough to prevent his
> ignominious fate. In fact, he was a victim of fate: incompetent,
> unscrupulous relativesýwhere have I heard that before? Too many to say.
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques
> Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this
> forum
> > & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> > accurate up to date information... The human remains are being handled by
> > University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> >
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
> >
> >
> > Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> > needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> > you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that
> then
> > that's entirely up to the individual...
> >
> >
> > On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and
> motivation
> > > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be
> to
> > > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of
> course
> > > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime
> did
> > > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I
> get the
> > > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th
> and
> > > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob
> brother
> > > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve
> well
> > > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482,
> but we
> > > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't
> necessarily
> > > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard
> pressed
> > > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his
> taking
> > > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do
> according
> > > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up
> under
> > > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> > >
> > > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses
> any
> > > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However,
> there
> > > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have
> made a
> > > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to
> boost
> > > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> > >
> > > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > > believing in nothing!
> > >
> > > --- In , "victoriaowen406"
> > > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York
> and
> > > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard
> deserves
> > > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > > >
> > > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also
> supposed to
> > > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are
> also
> > > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's
> 'withered
> > > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > > >
> > > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like
> it
> > > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to
> fight
> > > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > > >
> > > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is
> Richard
> > > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative
> soldier.
> > > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet
> and
> > > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely
> be a
> > > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing
> difficulties
> > > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > > >
> > > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would
> be
> > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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>

I have a question or two.  If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
 
Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.
 
Thank you all.....................


________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig

You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
& check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html


Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
that's entirely up to the individual...


On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>
> A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
>
> Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> believing in nothing!
>
> --- In , "victoriaowen406"
> <victoriaowen406@...> wrote:
> >
> > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> >
> > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> >
> > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> >
> > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> and back pain even if they were riding.
> >
> > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> appreciated.
> >
>
> 
>



--
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>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I had the impression (and I could definitely be wrong) that the remains were buried under the floors of the churches and the tombs that sit above the floors do not contain the bodies.  If I am correct than King Richard would not have been inside the tomb Henry VII ordered.  I hope someone can clarify this.
Vickie

From: Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig


 
I have a question or two.  If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
 
Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.
 
Thank you all.....................


________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig

You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
& check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html

Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
that's entirely up to the individual...

On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>
> A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
>
> Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> believing in nothing!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> <victoriaowen406@...> wrote:
> >
> > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> >
> > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> >
> > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> >
> > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> and back pain even if they were riding.
> >
> > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> appreciated.
> >
>
> 
>

--
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>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...> wrote:
>
>f it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.

No-one is going to look "foolish" and I surprised you even think they would.
>  
> Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.

What Henry had built was more of a monument....which would have been placed over the grave where Richard wasalready buried. This monument was lost when Greyfriars was destroyed. Some families had their ancestors remains removed and re-buried when this happened....This was not done in Richard's case and thus his grave became lost over the years. Eileen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
> You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
> & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
> University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
>
>
> Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...
>
>
> On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> >
> > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > believing in nothing!
> >
> > --- In , "victoriaowen406"
> > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > >
> > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > >
> > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > >
> > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> > appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Vickie....I think you would be very interested in a book called Royal Tombs of Medieval England by Mark Duffy...Its very good and could answer a lot of your questions...Eileen

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I had the impression (and I could definitely be wrong) that the remains were buried under the floors of the churches and the tombs that sit above the floors do not contain the bodies.  If I am correct than King Richard would not have been inside the tomb Henry VII ordered.  I hope someone can clarify this.
> Vickie
>
> From: Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
>
>  
> I have a question or two.  If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
>  
> Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.
>  
> Thank you all.....................
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
> You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
> & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
> University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
>
> Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...
>
> On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> >
> > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > believing in nothing!
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > >
> > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > >
> > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > >
> > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> > appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No-one is going to look "foolish" and I surprised you even think they would.
 
No reason for you to be snippy either Eileen.  We are all entitled to our opinions, and at best, we can say that they are fairly sure they found him, but I am just asking the question.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Grey Friars Dig



 



--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...> wrote:
>
>f it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.

No-one is going to look "foolish" and I surprised you even think they would.
>  
> Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.

What Henry had built was more of a monument....which would have been placed over the grave where Richard wasalready buried. This monument was lost when Greyfriars was destroyed. Some families had their ancestors remains removed and re-buried when this happened....This was not done in Richard's case and thus his grave became lost over the years. Eileen
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
> You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
> & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
> University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
>
>
> Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...
>
>
> On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> >
> > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > believing in nothing!
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > >
> > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > >
> > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > >
> > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> > appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Vickie



________________________________
From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig



 



I had the impression (and I could definitely be wrong) that the remains were buried under the floors of the churches and the tombs that sit above the floors do not contain the bodies.  If I am correct than King Richard would not have been inside the tomb Henry VII ordered.  I hope someone can clarify this.
Vickie

From: Brittany Wynter <mailto:brittania97%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig

 
I have a question or two.  If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
 
Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.
 
Thank you all.....................

________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig

You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
& check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html

Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
that's entirely up to the individual...

On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>
> A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
>
> Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> believing in nothing!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> <victoriaowen406@...> wrote:
> >
> > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> >
> > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> >
> > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> >
> > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> and back pain even if they were riding.
> >
> > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> appreciated.
> >
>
> 
>

--
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>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

You're right, Vickie - unless we're talking about a vault or mausoleum, burials are in the ground and commemorative tombs are superstructures that sit above the ground and don't contain bodies.

The material for Richard's commemorative tomb was alabaster - not particularly durable, and attractive for recycling.once the premises had been stripped of roofing and were open for robbing of all available materials. I think the archaeologists made it clear that even the floor tiles had been removed - this church was basically stripped bare and flattened. in the mid 16th century. No one expected to find any tombs!

If anyone is really interested in getting the facts about the fate of Richard's body once it reached Leicester, this is covered on pp.268-70 of "Maligned King". It is covered in even greater depth by John Ashdown-Hill in "The Last Days of Richard III", a small paperback and even less expensive than mine. A moment's thought will reveal that Richard's body would have been given a modest burial because he wasn't expected to die and the Franciscans didn't expect to have to bury him. Long before the dig we discussed what we might find, and the question of coffin or shroud was debated endlessly - eventually we thought there was an equal chance of either. Why would that worry anyone? After death it was the soul that mattered, and the friars obviously made sure they cared for Richard's soul.

John's research was used as the bedrock for locating the Greyfriars and pinpointing the area of the church and guess what - he was 100 percent right. How good is that? The church is right, the burial place is right, the nature of the pathology of the warrior knight is compatible with what one would expect. Should the university have simply said "We are carrying out tests on an anonymous skeleton which has been found in precisely the place where we were looking for Richard so we'll talk to you in 12 weeks time"? I'm afraid you can't do that in the era of 24-hour news, the media will push and push (as they did at the news conference) and good money will be paid for sneaky photos and videos. And by the way, if you actually read and/or listen to the official announcement, the university DIDN'T say "We think we've found him", nor did they say they were "fairly sure they'd found him". They described the find and said they were very excited because it might prove to be him, but the only way to find out is to carry out tests. That way it's totally honest and out in the open - if anyone has a better plan I'd be interested to hear it.

By the way, stories of scraps of velvet found on the rubbish heap in 1674 (NOT velvet clothing, I hasten to add) were unsubstantiated gossip. Velvet was never recorded by the principals who made the official record of the find and who were involved in disposing of the remains. Nor were any textiles found in the urn in 1933. Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
Regards, Annette


----- Original Message -----
From: Vickie Cook
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig





I had the impression (and I could definitely be wrong) that the remains were buried under the floors of the churches and the tombs that sit above the floors do not contain the bodies. If I am correct than King Richard would not have been inside the tomb Henry VII ordered. I hope someone can clarify this.
Vickie

From: Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig


I have a question or two. If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do? They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.

Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.

Thank you all.....................

________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig

You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
& check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
accurate up to date information... The human remains are being handled by
University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html

Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
that's entirely up to the individual...

On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>
> A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
>
> Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> believing in nothing!
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> <victoriaowen406@...> wrote:
> >
> > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> >
> > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> >
> > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> >
> > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> and back pain even if they were riding.
> >
> > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> appreciated.
> >
>
>
>

--
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>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Returning to your post Vickie...There are no hard and fast rules. What you say is correct in a lot of cases...but there are some instances where the monument/tomb covers a vault..where there are several bodies not just the remains of the person on the monument. Sometimes the vault is elsewhere in the church/abbey. And other times the monument is in the wrong place altogether as it has been moved because of a later burial or changes made in the church. The Georgians/Victorians were good at this...And then you can get a case like' Edward of Middleham'...where the monument has probably come from somewhere altogether. And Im sure you already know that this is not actually Edward of Middleham at all. Eileen

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I had the impression (and I could definitely be wrong) that the remains were buried under the floors of the churches and the tombs that sit above the floors do not contain the bodies.  If I am correct than King Richard would not have been inside the tomb Henry VII ordered.  I hope someone can clarify this.
> Vickie
>
> From: Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
>
>  
> I have a question or two.  If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
>  
> Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.
>  
> Thank you all.....................
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
> You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
> & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> accurate up to date information... The human remains are  being handled by
> University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
>
> Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...
>
> On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> >
> > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > believing in nothing!
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > >
> > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > >
> > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > >
> > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> > appreciated.
> > >
> >
> > 
> >
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:

The man at the Leicester Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated, stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>



I think I'll take the opinion of the experts over that of the guy at the front desk. I don't understand why you keep citing him as an authority.

Katy

I dont know how much Richard's burial cost....but the monument commissioned by Henry cost £ 10.1s paid to James Keyley for "King Richard tombe"....How generous of him when you consider Henry's funeral expenses exceeded £7,000, including £1,000 of black cloth and 3,606 lbs of candle wax. The cost of the tomb was estimated at £1257.6s8d of which the gilt metal cost £1,050. The entire project took over two years. I cannot tell you how thrilled I am that Richard is now going to, at long last, be re-interred somewhere much more appropriate....Eileen

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> You're right, Vickie - unless we're talking about a vault or mausoleum, burials are in the ground and commemorative tombs are superstructures that sit above the ground and don't contain bodies.
>
> The material for Richard's commemorative tomb was alabaster - not particularly durable, and attractive for recycling.once the premises had been stripped of roofing and were open for robbing of all available materials. I think the archaeologists made it clear that even the floor tiles had been removed - this church was basically stripped bare and flattened. in the mid 16th century. No one expected to find any tombs!
>
> If anyone is really interested in getting the facts about the fate of Richard's body once it reached Leicester, this is covered on pp.268-70 of "Maligned King". It is covered in even greater depth by John Ashdown-Hill in "The Last Days of Richard III", a small paperback and even less expensive than mine. A moment's thought will reveal that Richard's body would have been given a modest burial because he wasn't expected to die and the Franciscans didn't expect to have to bury him. Long before the dig we discussed what we might find, and the question of coffin or shroud was debated endlessly - eventually we thought there was an equal chance of either. Why would that worry anyone? After death it was the soul that mattered, and the friars obviously made sure they cared for Richard's soul.
>
> John's research was used as the bedrock for locating the Greyfriars and pinpointing the area of the church and guess what - he was 100 percent right. How good is that? The church is right, the burial place is right, the nature of the pathology of the warrior knight is compatible with what one would expect. Should the university have simply said "We are carrying out tests on an anonymous skeleton which has been found in precisely the place where we were looking for Richard so we'll talk to you in 12 weeks time"? I'm afraid you can't do that in the era of 24-hour news, the media will push and push (as they did at the news conference) and good money will be paid for sneaky photos and videos. And by the way, if you actually read and/or listen to the official announcement, the university DIDN'T say "We think we've found him", nor did they say they were "fairly sure they'd found him". They described the find and said they were very excited because it might prove to be him, but the only way to find out is to carry out tests. That way it's totally honest and out in the open - if anyone has a better plan I'd be interested to hear it.
>
> By the way, stories of scraps of velvet found on the rubbish heap in 1674 (NOT velvet clothing, I hasten to add) were unsubstantiated gossip. Velvet was never recorded by the principals who made the official record of the find and who were involved in disposing of the remains. Nor were any textiles found in the urn in 1933. Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
> Regards, Annette
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Vickie Cook
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
>
>
>
>
> I had the impression (and I could definitely be wrong) that the remains were buried under the floors of the churches and the tombs that sit above the floors do not contain the bodies. If I am correct than King Richard would not have been inside the tomb Henry VII ordered. I hope someone can clarify this.
> Vickie
>
> From: Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
>
> I have a question or two. If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do? They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
>
> Wouldn't his body have been put in the tomb that has been documented? Were any remmants of the tomb Tudor ordered still there? It seems kind of odd that the body of a King would have been put in a shroud only. I am just curious then if parts of the tomb were found and just not mentioned.
>
> Thank you all.....................
>
> ________________________________
> From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <mailto:lisa.holtjones%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
> You perhaps need to re-read all the posts regarding the dig, on this forum
> & check out the official University Leicester Greyfriars webpage for
> accurate up to date information... The human remains are being handled by
> University Leicester scholar Dr Turi King
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Human-remains-search-King-Richard-III-Leicester/story-16875937-detail/story.html
>
> Anyone can say anything - but its not necessarily true - to be sure it
> needs to be backed up with facts which is what the experts are doing. If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...
>
> On 20 September 2012 10:47, HI <mailto:hi.dung%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The severity of scoliosis is going to vary with individuals and motivation
> > to overcome any limiting factors must be taken into account. Richard in
> > portraits which have come down to us always looks grim and this may be to
> > do with his determination to overcome his physical problem: which of course
> > wasn't his fault, even if the prejudiced writers of the Tudor regime did
> > make a fuss over physical misfortune being connected with `evil.' I get the
> > impression that all of the monarchs could be ruthless during the 15th and
> > 16th century. Clearly, Richard had other problems, like his slob brother
> > Edward IV and the voracious Woodville brood, who had already done down
> > Richard's brother: the less than inspiring George. Richard did serve well
> > at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we
> > don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily
> > engage in battle. He did at Bosworth, but it's obvious he was hard pressed
> > there and, indeed, he was decisively defeated. The man at the Leicester
> > Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been
> > immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking
> > the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according
> > to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated,
> > stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for
> > dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under
> > a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> > A photograph of the alleged bones of Richard would be useful to asses any
> > deformity, but weren't available when I visited on Monday. However, there
> > may be problems: Leicester was a Roman town and certain people have made a
> > clamour about the alleged Edward V bones being Roman and how do we know
> > that these Leicester folk won't claim these bones as Richard just to boost
> > the flagging tourist economy of Leicester?
> >
> > Of course, if we carry on like this we end up suspecting everything and
> > believing in nothing!
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "victoriaowen406"
> > <victoriaowen406@> wrote:
> > >
> > > i have a long standing interest in the history of the house of York and
> > am very excited by the finds of the dig in Leicestershire. Richard deserves
> > a proper burial and honour especially after the way he was treated by
> > Henry's army when he lost at Bosworth.
> > >
> > > Although someone with 'severe scoliosis' as the skeleton has been
> > described, has one shoulder higher than the other they are also supposed to
> > have breathing difficulties, back pain and limited mobility. They are also
> > supposed to suffer nerve damage (which could explain Richard's 'withered
> > arm')and a sideways kink in the back.
> > >
> > > I am not an expert on medievil warfare or armour but it sounds like it
> > would be painful and hard work for someone with severe scolisis to fight
> > effectively and wear armour for hours at a time.
> > >
> > > Please could someone enlighten me on this as i really hope it is Richard
> > and I was under the impression Richard was a capable and inovative soldier.
> > After all did he not have command of the van at the battle of Barnet and
> > the march on to Tewkesbury was supposed to be 'a toil of strength and
> > endurance'. Did they not march 35? miles in a day? This would surely be a
> > feat of endurance for anyone let alone someone with breathing difficulties
> > and back pain even if they were riding.
> > >
> > > As i said medievil warfare is not my forte so any information would be
> > appreciated.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:

[snip]
>
> By the way, stories of scraps of velvet found on the rubbish heap in 1674 (NOT velvet clothing, I hasten to add) were unsubstantiated gossip. Velvet was never recorded by the principals who made the official record of the find and who were involved in disposing of the remains. Nor were any textiles found in the urn in 1933. Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
> Regards, Annette



It strikes me that doing serious historical research via documents is very like doing it with a trowel -- you have to work through, examine, and ultimately throw out a lot of extraneous material in order to find the real stuff. And it takes some expertise to tell the difference.

I must be in a philosophical mood this morning. Tackling my housework to-do list should cure that.

Katy

I think I'll take the opinion of the experts over that of the guy at the front desk. I don't understand why you keep citing him as an authority.

>
> Katy

Lol Katy......


>

On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:47, HI wrote:

> Richard did serve well at Barnet and Tewkesbury and of course in the Scottish wars of 1482, but we don't know what he actually did during these. Commanders don't necessarily engage in battle


Incorrect we do know. He was wounded at Barnet and two if his squires who were fighting close to him were killed. He was also in command of the van at Tewkesbury. And in the WOTR all commanders fought and led their men, if he wanted them to fight for him. When Edward IV was in the middle of the fray who would stand at the back just giving orders? Not Richard for sure.
Paul


Richard Liveth Yet!

On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:59, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:

> If
> you want to listen to gossip & tittle tattle & maybe this & maybe that then
> that's entirely up to the individual...

But not the thing to do here I think you are saying Lisa, which I completely agree with.
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

I never thought that it was correct about the pieces of rag and velvet found with the bones. That was added on later, probably by some bright spark who wanted to feel important.. Lies and nonsense when stated as fact can be so misleading over the passage of time. Another example is the River Soar story....

But Annette..I am much surprised you say that the two sets of bones were not in fact found facing each other...I thought this was the case. But come to think of it they were not complete sets of bones were they. Is it known how they were found....?

Eileen
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > By the way, stories of scraps of velvet found on the rubbish heap in 1674 (NOT velvet clothing, I hasten to add) were unsubstantiated gossip. Velvet was never recorded by the principals who made the official record of the find and who were involved in disposing of the remains. Nor were any textiles found in the urn in 1933. Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
> > Regards, Annette
>
>
>
> It strikes me that doing serious historical research via documents is very like doing it with a trowel -- you have to work through, examine, and ultimately throw out a lot of extraneous material in order to find the real stuff. And it takes some expertise to tell the difference.
>
> I must be in a philosophical mood this morning. Tackling my housework to-do list should cure that.
>
> Katy
>

On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:46, Annette Carson wrote:

> Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!


Hope we are all paying attention here!!!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

I have always had the impression that Mr Tanner and Prof Wright WANTED the bones to be those of Edward and Richard...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Sep 2012, at 17:46, Annette Carson wrote:
>
> > Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
>
>
> Hope we are all paying attention here!!!
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

The bones were described as having been found ten feet deep in the ground, then thrown on a rubbish heap, from which they were later retrieved.


----- Original Message -----
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Grey Friars Dig




I never thought that it was correct about the pieces of rag and velvet found with the bones. That was added on later, probably by some bright spark who wanted to feel important.. Lies and nonsense when stated as fact can be so misleading over the passage of time. Another example is the River Soar story....

But Annette..I am much surprised you say that the two sets of bones were not in fact found facing each other...I thought this was the case. But come to think of it they were not complete sets of bones were they. Is it known how they were found....?

Eileen
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > By the way, stories of scraps of velvet found on the rubbish heap in 1674 (NOT velvet clothing, I hasten to add) were unsubstantiated gossip. Velvet was never recorded by the principals who made the official record of the find and who were involved in disposing of the remains. Nor were any textiles found in the urn in 1933. Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
> > Regards, Annette
>
>
>
> It strikes me that doing serious historical research via documents is very like doing it with a trowel -- you have to work through, examine, and ultimately throw out a lot of extraneous material in order to find the real stuff. And it takes some expertise to tell the difference.
>
> I must be in a philosophical mood this morning. Tackling my housework to-do list should cure that.
>
> Katy
>

Actually the experts from the University of Leicester were very careful and emphasized that they do NOT say they have found Richard III.

Here's a quote from the press conference and the UoL website:

"Statement from Richard Taylor, Director of Corporate Affairs

"The University has always been clear that any remains would need to be subjected to rigorous laboratory analysis before we confirm the outcome of the search for Richard III.

"We are not saying today that we have found King Richard III. What we are saying is that the search for Richard III has entered a new phase. Our focus is shifting from the archaeological excavation to laboratory analysis. This skeleton certainly has characteristics that warrant extensive further detailed examination."

Full text and press conference here:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2012/september/search-for-richard-iii-enters-new-phase-201cmomentous-discovery-has-potential-to-rewrite-history201d

Listening closely to what they say, and what they don't say(!) answered many questions for me.

I do understand that the experts have to be very careful, but I have no doubt that this is his grave, whatever the DNA tests will say.

Renate



--- In , Brittany Wynter <brittania97@...> wrote:
>
> I have a question or two.  If the DNA results along with other tests take up to 12 weeks to reveal what we hope are the human remains of King Richard III, then wasn't it a bit too premature to say they think they found him? If it proves not to be him, not trying to be pessimistic, but sensible, what will they do?  They would look rather foolish to say it's not him after all - especially with all the news.
>  

Well I'll be blowed...that is correct....there is no mention in the original accounts that they were found face to face....Yikes Eileen

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> The bones were described as having been found ten feet deep in the ground, then thrown on a rubbish heap, from which they were later retrieved.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Grey Friars Dig
>
>
>
>
> I never thought that it was correct about the pieces of rag and velvet found with the bones. That was added on later, probably by some bright spark who wanted to feel important.. Lies and nonsense when stated as fact can be so misleading over the passage of time. Another example is the River Soar story....
>
> But Annette..I am much surprised you say that the two sets of bones were not in fact found facing each other...I thought this was the case. But come to think of it they were not complete sets of bones were they. Is it known how they were found....?
>
> Eileen
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > By the way, stories of scraps of velvet found on the rubbish heap in 1674 (NOT velvet clothing, I hasten to add) were unsubstantiated gossip. Velvet was never recorded by the principals who made the official record of the find and who were involved in disposing of the remains. Nor were any textiles found in the urn in 1933. Equally mythical was the story that two skeletons were found face to face in a wooden chest - that was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Just as the press conference has been inadvertently misquoted on this forum, so onlookers and later storytellers said things about the bones of 1674 to make identification with the princes seem all the more likely. Lessons to be learned from history, perhaps!
> > > Regards, Annette
> >
> >
> >
> > It strikes me that doing serious historical research via documents is very like doing it with a trowel -- you have to work through, examine, and ultimately throw out a lot of extraneous material in order to find the real stuff. And it takes some expertise to tell the difference.
> >
> > I must be in a philosophical mood this morning. Tackling my housework to-do list should cure that.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> I do understand that the experts have to be very careful, but I have no doubt that this is his grave, whatever the DNA tests will say.
>
> Renate
>
>

I agree with you, Renate. It is hard to see who else it could be particularly since they found no other male skeletons, or so I understand.
We should also remember that, whilst DNA testing may be a hard science, genealogy is not and there are many pitfalls. If I knew that a NUMBER of wary, experienced genealogists had worked out the genealogy independently and come up with the same answer I'm honest I would feel more confident. Even in such a matter as transcription for publication it is normal to have two paleographers transcribe the same piece independently, and then a third compare the two and adjudicate on differences, and th.is is so much more important
Annette, do you know how many people have studied & verified Joy Ibsen's female antecedents?
Marie

Marie, I've read that the UoL will do their own genealogical research, and try to follow an independent line to verify J. Ashdown-Hills research. Since the UoL/ULAS experts have done such an outstanding job so far, I trust they will continue to do so.

Renate

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I do understand that the experts have to be very careful, but I have no doubt that this is his grave, whatever the DNA tests will say.
> >
> > Renate
> >
> >
>
> I agree with you, Renate. It is hard to see who else it could be particularly since they found no other male skeletons, or so I understand.
> We should also remember that, whilst DNA testing may be a hard science, genealogy is not and there are many pitfalls. If I knew that a NUMBER of wary, experienced genealogists had worked out the genealogy independently and come up with the same answer I'm honest I would feel more confident. Even in such a matter as transcription for publication it is normal to have two paleographers transcribe the same piece independently, and then a third compare the two and adjudicate on differences, and th.is is so much more important
> Annette, do you know how many people have studied & verified Joy Ibsen's female antecedents?
> Marie
>

That is excellent. We've got to be able to come at this from more than one direction.
Thanks for this info.
Marie

--- In , "walkerjaneway" <renatemm@...> wrote:
>
> Marie, I've read that the UoL will do their own genealogical research, and try to follow an independent line to verify J. Ashdown-Hills research. Since the UoL/ULAS experts have done such an outstanding job so far, I trust they will continue to do so.
>
> Renate
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I do understand that the experts have to be very careful, but I have no doubt that this is his grave, whatever the DNA tests will say.
> > >
> > > Renate
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree with you, Renate. It is hard to see who else it could be particularly since they found no other male skeletons, or so I understand.
> > We should also remember that, whilst DNA testing may be a hard science, genealogy is not and there are many pitfalls. If I knew that a NUMBER of wary, experienced genealogists had worked out the genealogy independently and come up with the same answer I'm honest I would feel more confident. Even in such a matter as transcription for publication it is normal to have two paleographers transcribe the same piece independently, and then a third compare the two and adjudicate on differences, and th.is is so much more important
> > Annette, do you know how many people have studied & verified Joy Ibsen's female antecedents?
> > Marie
> >
>

Reffering to the question "Popular/Unpopular", this is a very tricky "eye of the beholder" thing. As we´re most times judging the written remains of historians, authors and other more bureaucratic papers, we have only the views of those who put the words down...not a new thing...Coming up with an example that works very well I think: Nero.
The most loathed emperor, endlessly blackmailed and trusted to do any evil under the sun. There are a few paralels as he was painted both an evil to be feared as well as a fool of some sort. These days however there are more and more experts who entrust him with some sense if not humanity. His aid after the burning of rome, the precautions to prevent more devastation through a better building technique, the feeding of the normal folks. In fact he did more for the citizen than most emperors but...he killed the rich (almost a Robin Hood type) to become himself richer and to invest the money into his architecture projects.
Of course there are more essays that deal with him as a brutal murderer than those who praise him as a saviour, mostly because the normal folks didn´t write as much as the nobler classes.

Marion Z
--- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> But that begs the question, popular/unpopular with whom?
>
> To draw a modern parallel, Mrs Thatcher was popular in the South of England and the USA, much less popular in the North of England, Scotland and Wales, and positively hated in the Yorkshire coalfield. One person, many reactions.
>
> Richard seems to have been loved most by those who knew him best, the people of the North, especially Yorkshire. Many of these people it should be noted were former Lancastrians/Neville supporters, not 'Yorkists' in the long-term sense of the word. That fact is interesting in itself.
>
> It has to be remembered that Richard had little following in the South. He had gone out of his way to sell or exchange most of the southern properties he had in order to consolidate his power north of Trent. South of Trent he was overly reliant on the Howards and Lovell, and had to import northerners to keep a lid on things after the 1483 Buckingham rebellion. Like Cromwell's use of the Major Generals this was not popular with the local powers-that-be as it cut across their hereditary influence and family networks.
>
> Brian W.
>
> --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote: (snipped)
> >
> > The man at the Leicester Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated, stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
> >
> >
>

And of course he never played the fiddle! :-) Honest. He didn't!
Interesting too that our ideas of the lives of the Julio Claudian emperors are based almost entirely on Suetonius who was writing many years after their deaths, and he "embellished" for his audience, trowling on bloody even after bloody event to please his public. It was Suetonius that Robert Graves used when he wrote I Claudius, as the Bard probably used More for his play called Richard III.
Paul


On 22 Sep 2012, at 12:50, marionziemke wrote:

>
> Reffering to the question "Popular/Unpopular", this is a very tricky "eye of the beholder" thing. As we´re most times judging the written remains of historians, authors and other more bureaucratic papers, we have only the views of those who put the words down...not a new thing...Coming up with an example that works very well I think: Nero.
> The most loathed emperor, endlessly blackmailed and trusted to do any evil under the sun. There are a few paralels as he was painted both an evil to be feared as well as a fool of some sort. These days however there are more and more experts who entrust him with some sense if not humanity. His aid after the burning of rome, the precautions to prevent more devastation through a better building technique, the feeding of the normal folks. In fact he did more for the citizen than most emperors but...he killed the rich (almost a Robin Hood type) to become himself richer and to invest the money into his architecture projects.
> Of course there are more essays that deal with him as a brutal murderer than those who praise him as a saviour, mostly because the normal folks didn´t write as much as the nobler classes.
>
> Marion Z
> --- In , "Brian" <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>>
>> But that begs the question, popular/unpopular with whom?
>>
>> To draw a modern parallel, Mrs Thatcher was popular in the South of England and the USA, much less popular in the North of England, Scotland and Wales, and positively hated in the Yorkshire coalfield. One person, many reactions.
>>
>> Richard seems to have been loved most by those who knew him best, the people of the North, especially Yorkshire. Many of these people it should be noted were former Lancastrians/Neville supporters, not 'Yorkists' in the long-term sense of the word. That fact is interesting in itself.
>>
>> It has to be remembered that Richard had little following in the South. He had gone out of his way to sell or exchange most of the southern properties he had in order to consolidate his power north of Trent. South of Trent he was overly reliant on the Howards and Lovell, and had to import northerners to keep a lid on things after the 1483 Buckingham rebellion. Like Cromwell's use of the Major Generals this was not popular with the local powers-that-be as it cut across their hereditary influence and family networks.
>>
>> Brian W.
>>
>> --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote: (snipped)
>>>
>>> The man at the Leicester Guildhall, which I visited recently, said that if Richard had been immensely popular at the time, which may've been connected with his taking the crown from his 12 year old nephew (a very naughty thing to do according to the common views of that time,) he would not have been defeated, stripped naked and buried in an obscure grey friar's chapel, known for dealing with the most unfortunate in society. Hence, Richard ended up under a council car park: not the usual place for royal family members.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!