back shot….

I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total, far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot occurred in this way. More than any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me&..it speaks so loudly.

Me too.....
I still cannot fathom why they would want to degrade his body like that....Many monarchs have died in battles but I cannot recall any whose body was treated in such a disgusting way! And if common soldiers were responsible for that, why didn't the nobles stop it? What does that say about the new regime?

--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total, far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot occurred in this way. More than any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me…..it speaks so loudly.
>

My speculation, as well. And that arrowhead may have shifted, post-mortem, as the body's soft tissues decayed.

Judy

 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:32 PM
Subject: back shot&.

I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body  in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total,  far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot  occurred in this way.  More than  any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me&..it speaks so loudly.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I'm not sure this could be the explanation. My understanding is that he was shot from behind and the arrow lodged in the vertebrae but didn't penetrate the spine. Had Richard been shot naked by someone standing over him the arrow would have gone right through the body and way down into the ground, judging by the film Mark Stretton showed us of his experiments with a dead pig.
I think what needs to be established is what kind of range the arrow would have been shot from to pierce the armour by just that amount.
Marie

--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total, far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot occurred in this way. More than any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me…..it speaks so loudly.
>

Warfare is neither civil nor humane in any time period
My understanding is that unless you were a knight or squire very little went into the feelings of your opposition as most of the army were semi trained surfs taken from there lords land. They used whatever was provided or farm implements
Take a look at recent news footage as to treatment of deceased army/ opposition members and understand how little has changed!
If R3 had been surrounded by Henry's forces the outcome was inevitable by contempary 15cent standards almost "humane "
George

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:42 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not sure this could be the explanation. My understanding is that he was shot from behind and the arrow lodged in the vertebrae but didn't penetrate the spine. Had Richard been shot naked by someone standing over him the arrow would have gone right through the body and way down into the ground, judging by the film Mark Stretton showed us of his experiments with a dead pig.
> I think what needs to be established is what kind of range the arrow would have been shot from to pierce the armour by just that amount.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
> >
> > I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total, far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot occurred in this way. More than any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me&..it speaks so loudly.
> >
>
>

You are right, George. Very little has changed, indeed.
Marie, is the video online? DO you have the link?

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Warfare is neither civil nor humane in any time period
> My understanding is that unless you were a knight or squire very little went into the feelings of your opposition as most of the army were semi trained surfs taken from there lords land. They used whatever was provided or farm implements
> Take a look at recent news footage as to treatment of deceased army/ opposition members and understand how little has changed!
> If R3 had been surrounded by Henry's forces the outcome was inevitable by contempary 15cent standards almost "humane "
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:42 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure this could be the explanation. My understanding is that he was shot from behind and the arrow lodged in the vertebrae but didn't penetrate the spine. Had Richard been shot naked by someone standing over him the arrow would have gone right through the body and way down into the ground, judging by the film Mark Stretton showed us of his experiments with a dead pig.
> > I think what needs to be established is what kind of range the arrow would have been shot from to pierce the armour by just that amount.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total, far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot occurred in this way. More than any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me…..it speaks so loudly.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Fraid not. First, they were still photos, not a video, and they were shown at a talk he gave.
Marie

--- In , "bandyoi" <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> You are right, George. Very little has changed, indeed.
> Marie, is the video online? DO you have the link?
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > Warfare is neither civil nor humane in any time period
> > My understanding is that unless you were a knight or squire very little went into the feelings of your opposition as most of the army were semi trained surfs taken from there lords land. They used whatever was provided or farm implements
> > Take a look at recent news footage as to treatment of deceased army/ opposition members and understand how little has changed!
> > If R3 had been surrounded by Henry's forces the outcome was inevitable by contempary 15cent standards almost "humane "
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:42 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure this could be the explanation. My understanding is that he was shot from behind and the arrow lodged in the vertebrae but didn't penetrate the spine. Had Richard been shot naked by someone standing over him the arrow would have gone right through the body and way down into the ground, judging by the film Mark Stretton showed us of his experiments with a dead pig.
> > > I think what needs to be established is what kind of range the arrow would have been shot from to pierce the armour by just that amount.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I hate to say it, so someone already did, that my first thought when I heard very early on, that one arrow head was in the rear spine, I actually envisioned an archer doing this to the stripped dead body in a final act of purely disgusting disgrace. It seemed so in character with all that we know of Henry VII. And the total, far reaching slander on every aspect of Richards life and personality, fits accordingly, if this arrow shot occurred in this way. More than any other detail so far, this one arrow head in an unlikely place, has truly haunted me…..it speaks so loudly.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>