Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard`s survival…..

Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).

In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.

Jonathan

Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
>
> In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).

Judy

 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
>
> In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
>
> Judy
>
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
>
>
>  
> Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> >
> > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely. I have the same response, Eileen. Some people will understand; others won't. I'm quite OK with that.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..


 
Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
>
> Judy
>
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..
>
>
>  
> Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> >
> > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness. Everything we know about that illness suggests it killed very quickly - a suffering individual was totally prostrated. And imagine the speed of dehydration wearing full body armour with a disease that causes profuse sweating anyway, not to mention the weight of the armour. Richard would have collapsed at the off! Also we have to think of the incubation period if Richard was to have had sweating sickness at Bosworth. Oxford University claimed to be the first place the illness struck after the battle, and that was early September. So whether it came from Henry's army or Richard's northern contingent I can't see that Richard could have been ill with it at Bosworth.
Marie

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
>
> In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> >
> > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>

Stupid question....I have visited Bosworth as well...I should have paid more attention but I was probably away with my thoughts...but do we know with 100% certainty that there was a charge? Where is this information from? Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness. Everything we know about that illness suggests it killed very quickly - a suffering individual was totally prostrated. And imagine the speed of dehydration wearing full body armour with a disease that causes profuse sweating anyway, not to mention the weight of the armour. Richard would have collapsed at the off! Also we have to think of the incubation period if Richard was to have had sweating sickness at Bosworth. Oxford University claimed to be the first place the illness struck after the battle, and that was early September. So whether it came from Henry's army or Richard's northern contingent I can't see that Richard could have been ill with it at Bosworth.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> >
> > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>

The sweating sickness, now thought by many to have been a hantavirus disease, sometimes ran as much as a 12-hour course of increasing illness. About two years ago, I researched the sickness via the assistance of the library (and librarians) of the American Medical Association. (And my additional thanks to Lynn Rader, M.D., the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, for interpreting some of the more arcane data for me...).

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness. Everything we know about that illness suggests it killed very quickly - a suffering individual was totally prostrated. And imagine the speed of dehydration wearing full body armour with a disease that causes profuse sweating anyway, not to mention the weight of the armour. Richard would have collapsed at the off! Also we have to think of the incubation period if Richard was to have had sweating sickness at Bosworth. Oxford University claimed to be the first place the illness struck after the battle, and that was early September. So whether it came from Henry's army or Richard's northern contingent I can't see that Richard could have been ill with it at Bosworth.
Marie

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
>
> In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html

Eileen



--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while.  The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.

Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many.  All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them.  He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle.  So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway.  Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated.  But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.

Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning.  She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis.  Might this also have affected Richard?  It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train.  And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...


Jonathan




________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Well, where ever he is reinterred, I'm hoping to attend the ceremonies. Even if I must stand outside in the rain....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html

Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Me too....Eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Well, where ever he is reinterred, I'm hoping to attend the ceremonies. Even if I must stand outside in the rain....
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
>
>
>  
> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > >
> > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

You can be depressed on different levels...At one time in my life I felt so low I could hardly function at all. Others can be depressed and still go about everyday stuff..just literally get on with it ..just feel grindingly low...Possibly feeling low could have led to Richard feeling fatalistic....Maybe he just put his fate in God's hand...lots of maybe's. What I'm thinking here is that Richard, on that morning, was maybe not thinking with a clear head...damn...I feel cross with him...Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while.  The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.
>
> Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many.  All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them.  He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle.  So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway.  Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated.  But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.
>
> Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning.  She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis.  Might this also have affected Richard?  It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train.  And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
>
>
>  
> From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break Exeter's line.

Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the last.

I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.

I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that was also Richard's opinion.

Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the water, does it?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> >
> >
> >  
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

All equally possible. We'll never know. 

Acute anxiety/depression are also early symptom of the Sweating Sickness, btw. Some years ago, a body of a noble who was suspected of dying of this was examined, in hopes of recovering the tell-tale RNA of hanta. But not enough genetic material could be harvested, due to the deterioration of tissue...and this individual died in one of the subsequent outbreaks and been properly buried. Richard's skeleton would be even less likely to yield such evidence.

So we can never know. But the depression idea, whether acute or longer term, has a certain merit among our speculations. Likewise, the discomfort associated with scoliosis; stress exacerbates the pain...I know this as a fellow sufferer.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while.  The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.

Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many.  All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them.  He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle.  So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway.  Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated.  But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.

Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning.  She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis.  Might this also have affected Richard?  It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train.  And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen wrote :

<snip> I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting.<snip>



Ah, what felicitous phraseology, Eileen! LOL!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..





From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

As someone with clinical depression, I can vouch for all your statements. And late summer into autumn is for some people a difficult transition, anyway. 

Of course, we'll never know....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..


 
You can be depressed on different levels...At one time in my life I felt so low I could hardly function at all. Others can be depressed and still go about everyday stuff..just literally get on with it ..just feel grindingly low...Possibly feeling low could have led to Richard feeling fatalistic....Maybe he just put his fate in God's hand...lots of maybe's. What I'm thinking here is that Richard, on that morning, was maybe not thinking with a clear head...damn...I feel cross with him...Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while.  The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.
>
> Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many.  All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them.  He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle.  So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway.  Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated.  But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.
>
> Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning.  She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis.  Might this also have affected Richard?  It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train.  And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..
>
>
>  
> From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely not, McJohn :-) 

And I'm not of the "suicidal" persuasion. More the "slightly impaired judgement" camp, considering Richard already knew how Thomas Stanley felt ("...I've other sons...").

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 
Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break Exeter's line.

Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the last.

I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.

I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that was also Richard's opinion.

Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the water, does it?

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..
> >
> >
> >  
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, Jonathan 

Well, all of the above may be true, you know. If circumstances were awful as far as Richard was concerned (and even without insurrection, he had to deal with the loss of his son and his wife), it is a logical assumption that he would have been depressed. As Protector and then King, Richard was thrust into the maelstrom of corrupted court life, a world that he had rejected years before. If he saw conspiracies on all sides and didn't know who his friends were, which is also likely, he may have been under a great deal of strain trying to deal with bruised egos and political factions. In that sense, once he knew that the battle was going to be joined  a role in which he felt comfortable and knew he was capable, he may have been relieved, even elated. I still think the bad dreams thing the night before the battle is likely, whatever the specific cause.



BTW, with scoliosis, I also think it is likely that Richard would have been in a great deal of pain, probably getting worse as he got older. Leaving aside the possibility of other health problems, I am sure that would have added to a sense of black gloom. Perhaps he felt that he would be completely incapacitated before long. My aunt, a victim of horrible scoliosis for many years (she lived to be 89), had her spine almost twisted in an S-curve before her death, and she suffered excruciating pain.



Just a few thoughts,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..





I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while. The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.

Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many. All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them. He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle. So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway. Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated. But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.

Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning. She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis. Might this also have affected Richard? It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train. And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..



From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 15:55
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival

> And I'm not of the "suicidal" persuasion. More the "slightly impaired judgement" camp


Me, too.

Jonathan

> I still think the bad dreams thing the night before the battle is likely, whatever the specific cause.

Hi Johanne

I don't mean I think it unlikely he had bad dreams - we all have bad dreams, and I sleep particularly badly on a regular basis. It's more how the legend uses the idea - i.e. bad dreams, which he's stupid enough to admit to, causing people to believe they're inspired by guilt/divine judgement etc.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 16:09
Subject: RE: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
Hi, Jonathan 

Well, all of the above may be true, you know. If circumstances were awful as far as Richard was concerned (and even without insurrection, he had to deal with the loss of his son and his wife), it is a logical assumption that he would have been depressed. As Protector and then King, Richard was thrust into the maelstrom of corrupted court life, a world that he had rejected years before. If he saw conspiracies on all sides and didn't know who his friends were, which is also likely, he may have been under a great deal of strain trying to deal with bruised egos and political factions. In that sense, once he knew that the battle was going to be joined  a role in which he felt comfortable and knew he was capable, he may have been relieved, even elated. I still think the bad dreams thing the night before the battle is likely, whatever the specific cause.

BTW, with scoliosis, I also think it is likely that Richard would have been in a great deal of pain, probably getting worse as he got older. Leaving aside the possibility of other health problems, I am sure that would have added to a sense of black gloom. Perhaps he felt that he would be completely incapacitated before long. My aunt, a victim of horrible scoliosis for many years (she lived to be 89), had her spine almost twisted in an S-curve before her death, and she suffered excruciating pain.

Just a few thoughts,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:06 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while. The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.

Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many. All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them. He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle. So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway. Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated. But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.

Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning. She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis. Might this also have affected Richard? It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train. And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen, I have the same thoughts. It was not a wise decision by a battle hardened commander. Being human, he had to be affected by the events in his private life and depression cannot not be ruled out.....
Ishita

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> >
> >
> >  
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Yes, I agree with you, Jonathan. That was used scurrilously by More. Josephine Tey makes a lovely point of that  she writes that the gossip from those who were secret with the King's chamberers seemed so petty that Grant immediately felt sympathy for Richard as being a better character than More.



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:17 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..





> I still think the bad dreams thing the night before the battle is likely, whatever the specific cause.

Hi Johanne

I don't mean I think it unlikely he had bad dreams - we all have bad dreams, and I sleep particularly badly on a regular basis. It's more how the legend uses the idea - i.e. bad dreams, which he's stupid enough to admit to, causing people to believe they're inspired by guilt/divine judgement etc.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 16:09
Subject: RE: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..



Hi, Jonathan 

Well, all of the above may be true, you know. If circumstances were awful as far as Richard was concerned (and even without insurrection, he had to deal with the loss of his son and his wife), it is a logical assumption that he would have been depressed. As Protector and then King, Richard was thrust into the maelstrom of corrupted court life, a world that he had rejected years before. If he saw conspiracies on all sides and didn't know who his friends were, which is also likely, he may have been under a great deal of strain trying to deal with bruised egos and political factions. In that sense, once he knew that the battle was going to be joined  a role in which he felt comfortable and knew he was capable, he may have been relieved, even elated. I still think the bad dreams thing the night before the battle is likely, whatever the specific cause.

BTW, with scoliosis, I also think it is likely that Richard would have been in a great deal of pain, probably getting worse as he got older. Leaving aside the possibility of other health problems, I am sure that would have added to a sense of black gloom. Perhaps he felt that he would be completely incapacitated before long. My aunt, a victim of horrible scoliosis for many years (she lived to be 89), had her spine almost twisted in an S-curve before her death, and she suffered excruciating pain.

Just a few thoughts,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:06 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while. The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.

Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many. All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them. He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle. So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway. Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated. But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.

Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning. She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis. Might this also have affected Richard? It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train. And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
>Lol...George...not at all....There is a difference in giving your alternative viewpoint, as you just have, which is welcome, and in a polite way about it than 'blowing' someone's theory out of the water...In short...it is all down to attitudes and the way it is done. I just find sometimes it is done in a high handed and scathing manner. Its both rude and tedious....Eileen
> Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the water, does it?
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > >  
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
>
> Eileen

Carol responds:

Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)

As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.

Carol

Carol

Carol...you don't have to subscribe to the DM to be able to comment. But to tell you the truth it would be a complete waste of time..The quality of reporting is absymal...and a lot of the comments posted are moronic....I read some of the comments when the story of the discovery of possible remains of Richard had been found was first printed and a lot of the comments..supposed to be amusing I suppose...were deplorable...I cannot go there again...unless you really want me to...Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> > I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
> >
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)
>
> As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

That's fascinating, Judy. Would you be able to email me a copy?
Marie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The sweating sickness, now thought by many to have been a hantavirus disease, sometimes ran as much as a 12-hour course of increasing illness. About two years ago, I researched the sickness via the assistance of the library (and librarians) of the American Medical Association. (And my additional thanks to Lynn Rader, M.D., the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, for interpreting some of the more arcane data for me...).
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness. Everything we know about that illness suggests it killed very quickly - a suffering individual was totally prostrated. And imagine the speed of dehydration wearing full body armour with a disease that causes profuse sweating anyway, not to mention the weight of the armour. Richard would have collapsed at the off! Also we have to think of the incubation period if Richard was to have had sweating sickness at Bosworth. Oxford University claimed to be the first place the illness struck after the battle, and that was early September. So whether it came from Henry's army or Richard's northern contingent I can't see that Richard could have been ill with it at Bosworth.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> >
> > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:43 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..






"EileenB" wrote:
>
> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
>
> Eileen

Carol responds:

Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)

As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.

Carol

Carol

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness.


Marie, didn't some French king make a similar headlong charge at his counterpart on the other side, and thus win the battle that had been going badly for him?

Richard, who surely had studied the art of war (if not The Art of War) might have been thinking of that tactic, it seems to me.

Katy

Judy Thomson wrote:
>
<snip>
> And I'm not of the "suicidal" persuasion. More the "slightly impaired judgement" camp, considering Richard already knew how Thomas Stanley felt ("...I've other sons...").
>
> Judy

Carol responds:

Isn't the whole story of Lord Stanley and "I have other sons" now considered apocryphal? I thought that his excuse was that he had sweating sickness (which Ashdown-Hill postulates could have been the truth; IIRC, he suggests that Stanley's messenger could have spread the virus to Richard).

At any rate, I thought that historians now think that Lord Thomas Stanley (in contrast to his brother, Sir William, who undoubtedly turned against Richard at the last moment), may not even have been present at Bosworth. At any rate, we certainly can't take the Croyland Chronicler's account at face value, including his assertion that Richard skipped Mass. Richard, devout Catholic that he was, would never have done that, nor, as Ashdown-Hill points out, would his chaplains have allowed it. They were required to celebrate Mass daily, and it would have been routine for them. The Croyland Chronicler was not present, and we don't know the source of his "information" about Bosworth.

Carol

All I currently have left are my notes and cites; I'd started to write a paper, and it quickly morphed into a novel, LoL. Writing scholarly papers is not my forte, but even fiction deserves careful, painstaking research. 

Let me see if I can find some of the sources Online...and free. My husband works for the AMA, so using their library was a sort of perq. It was a wonderful place, as one could look at print, as well as access New England's Journal, Lancet, et al. on the Web. So of course, about a year ago, the AMA closed its physical library. Hisss.

At least I can get some of the authors' names for you. Once I committed to the fictional route, my notes ended up in one of three big three-ring binders, so it may take me a while to go through, but I'll be glad to share with you what I still have.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..


 
That's fascinating, Judy. Would you be able to email me a copy?
Marie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The sweating sickness, now thought by many to have been a hantavirus disease, sometimes ran as much as a 12-hour course of increasing illness. About two years ago, I researched the sickness via the assistance of the library (and librarians) of the American Medical Association. (And my additional thanks to Lynn Rader, M.D., the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, for interpreting some of the more arcane data for me...).
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness. Everything we know about that illness suggests it killed very quickly - a suffering individual was totally prostrated. And imagine the speed of dehydration wearing full body armour with a disease that causes profuse sweating anyway, not to mention the weight of the armour. Richard would have collapsed at the off! Also we have to think of the incubation period if Richard was to have had sweating sickness at Bosworth. Oxford University claimed to be the first place the illness struck after the battle, and that was early September. So whether it came from Henry's army or Richard's northern contingent I can't see that Richard could have been ill with it at Bosworth.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> >
> > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Make that another brava, Gilda!
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:43 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
>
> Eileen

Carol responds:

Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)

As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.

Carol

Carol

That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and brave
commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, “He who
hesitates is lost.” The fact that he had been successful years before in
pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival





Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except
that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet
by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
Exeter's line.

Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said
this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry
directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get
him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the
last.

I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands
of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the
rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.

I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
was also Richard's opinion.

Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the
water, does it?

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking
up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water,
as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless
manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different
scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe
desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that
chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
>
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of
course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
of these in reproduction).
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at
that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing
out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
<jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration
- something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > >
> > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly
the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was
impaired.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Another point...Would Richard have made this... extremely risky...decision to charge if Anne and his little son had still been alive. It has been said that he was offered a horse to make his escape...Now I do not know if this is true or not....but if it were or even if it were not... would he perhaps, with his family in mind, taken that chance..get the hell out of there and live on to fight another day. Still these types of decision have to be made in split seconds...and with hindsight and all that....Eileen
--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness.
>
>
> Marie, didn't some French king make a similar headlong charge at his counterpart on the other side, and thus win the battle that had been going badly for him?
>
> Richard, who surely had studied the art of war (if not The Art of War) might have been thinking of that tactic, it seems to me.
>
> Katy
>

Did sweating sickness have a short incubation period? It had a short course, I know, but if it came from Bosworth then there was a notable timelag between the soldiers' movements and the first cases.
Also, about the drink at the well: Not only is Dickon's Well off the new battlesite, but every armoured knight would have drunk while he could before having to put his visor down - every time he tried to drink once battle had commenced he risked an arrow in the face. Long-distance athletes or dancers will also be very sure to keep themselves hydrated. Sorry, but Richard drinking before a battle is entirely what would be expected.

Elaine's suggestion about depression is not new. We know enough about how the human mind copes and doesn't cope to know that it is highly unlikely that Richard's mood would not have been very severely affected by the deaths of his wife and son and all the shocking rumours coinciding with his wife's death; in my opinion we don't need to find a stash of personal letters to be able to predict this with some degree of confidence.
Richard's hunting tells us nothing, really. Hunting was, as I believe John AH himself sets out in his book, regarded as training for war.
Yes, backache could I'm sure have kept Richard awake. But I wonder how well I'd have slept the night before a medieval battle. They were horrific affairs. Particularly since we don't know whether we can rely on the story of the bad night's sleep, I'm afraid I don't understand the need to go to such lengths to find arcane explanations, particularly since people don't always remember that what they read was only a tentative suggestion.
Marie

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while.  The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.
>
> Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many.  All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them.  He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle.  So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway.  Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated.  But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.
>
> Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning.  She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis.  Might this also have affected Richard?  It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train.  And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
>
>
>  
> From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Would a king really have had to drink from a well? It just doesnt ring true to me...as the story he didnt have any breakfast or Mass...As Marie just said...we now know that the well is far away from the battle site...It just goes to show how easily peoples can get legend and truth all in a muddle. Eileen


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Did sweating sickness have a short incubation period? It had a short course, I know, but if it came from Bosworth then there was a notable timelag between the soldiers' movements and the first cases.
> Also, about the drink at the well: Not only is Dickon's Well off the new battlesite, but every armoured knight would have drunk while he could before having to put his visor down - every time he tried to drink once battle had commenced he risked an arrow in the face. Long-distance athletes or dancers will also be very sure to keep themselves hydrated. Sorry, but Richard drinking before a battle is entirely what would be expected.
>
> Elaine's suggestion about depression is not new. We know enough about how the human mind copes and doesn't cope to know that it is highly unlikely that Richard's mood would not have been very severely affected by the deaths of his wife and son and all the shocking rumours coinciding with his wife's death; in my opinion we don't need to find a stash of personal letters to be able to predict this with some degree of confidence.
> Richard's hunting tells us nothing, really. Hunting was, as I believe John AH himself sets out in his book, regarded as training for war.
> Yes, backache could I'm sure have kept Richard awake. But I wonder how well I'd have slept the night before a medieval battle. They were horrific affairs. Particularly since we don't know whether we can rely on the story of the bad night's sleep, I'm afraid I don't understand the need to go to such lengths to find arcane explanations, particularly since people don't always remember that what they read was only a tentative suggestion.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > I'd thought the depression theory was quite plausible for a long while.  The counter-argument is that Richard was apparently in good spirits prior to Bosworth (he wasn't closeted in Nottingham Castle but went away to a hunting lodge for a few days) and viewed Tudor's landing as finally an opportunity to rid himself of what he seemed to perceive as more an annoyance than a serious threat.
> >
> > Ashdown-Hill merely suggests sweating sickness as one possibility among many.  All he's doing is looking at various stories (which, he admits, may have no basis in truth) and then trying to think of what may have inspired them.  He discounts nightmares because, if even Richard *had* had them, no commander would admit to that on the morning of a battle.  So he considered physical reasons for Richard having had a bad night's sleep and, perhaps, looking drawn and pale - which, of course, may not have happened anyway.  Sweating sickness was suggested because of the short incubation period and that fact that another legend says that Richard stopped to drink at a well early in the morning, indicating that he may have felt dehydrated.  But, even if Richard were ill, it could just have easily have been the onset of a cold or a bad headache.
> >
> > Another possible explanation for a difficult night's sleep (if it happened) occurred to me when reading one of Johanne's messages this morning.  She referred to a friend who had problems sleeping because of scoliosis.  Might this also have affected Richard?  It would go some way towards explaining the story of his bed being carried with his train.  And, if it had been left at an inn in Leicester, he would have had to make do with a smaller and less familiar camp bed for the night before the battle...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 14:32
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> >
> >
> >  
> > From a personal point of view....and I may be wrong..I tend to dwell on how people actually FELT so sheer guesswork....but I would have thought that thoughts of the Weasle and his ongoing invasion threats would have been intrusive in the worst possible way while Richard was witnessing Anne's last illness and trying to get on top of his grief. I should imagine, if this was the case, this would have left him with feelings of deep anger/resentment and just an abiding wish to smash Weasle's face in....smash him into oblivion and grind him into the mud...yep...the thought of it is quite uplifting. Was this topmost in Richard's mind at the time..Certainly if Richard had got within reach of Henry he would not have survied long.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I think this is a far more plausible explanation.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > >
> > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The sweating sickness, now thought by many to have been a hantavirus disease, sometimes ran as much as a 12-hour course of increasing illness. About two years ago, I researched the sickness via the assistance of the library (and librarians) of the American Medical Association. (And my additional thanks to Lynn Rader, M.D., the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, for interpreting some of the more arcane data for me...).



Is your study connecting the sweating sickness with hanta virus, or any others, available? It's been some years, but I specialized in researching medical subjects, and it seems to me that the two diseases are dissimilar in important ways. For one, hanta virus is not directly contagious between human beings -- you need a vector -- and the sweating sickness was. And the vector is the deer mouse, which only exists in the western hemisphere. For another, pulmonary symptoms overshadow all others in hanta virus cases, whereas from the very name of the sweating sickness, fever and profuse sweating apparently were the outstanding characteristic.

The most recent thing I read was that, like the plague of Athens, the sweating sickness doesn't fit well with any currently known disease, and may have burned itself out of mutated into another form, as diseases, especially virulent ones, tend to do. My information may be very out of date, however, so I'd love to learn more.

Katy

Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.

Field mice in the vicinity of a battle "field" encampment are altogether possible. Dendrochronological results in western Europe during that period suggest an especially warm summer - or so I'm told. A proliferation of small mammals. For a lot of this stuff, I rely on scientist friends much smarter than me. They might be stringing me along, after all. ;-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 
Judy Thomson wrote:
>
<snip>
> And I'm not of the "suicidal" persuasion. More the "slightly impaired judgement" camp, considering Richard already knew how Thomas Stanley felt ("...I've other sons...").
>
> Judy

Carol responds:

Isn't the whole story of Lord Stanley and "I have other sons" now considered apocryphal? I thought that his excuse was that he had sweating sickness (which Ashdown-Hill postulates could have been the truth; IIRC, he suggests that Stanley's messenger could have spread the virus to Richard).

At any rate, I thought that historians now think that Lord Thomas Stanley (in contrast to his brother, Sir William, who undoubtedly turned against Richard at the last moment), may not even have been present at Bosworth. At any rate, we certainly can't take the Croyland Chronicler's account at face value, including his assertion that Richard skipped Mass. Richard, devout Catholic that he was, would never have done that, nor, as Ashdown-Hill points out, would his chaplains have allowed it. They were required to celebrate Mass daily, and it would have been routine for them. The Croyland Chronicler was not present, and we don't know the source of his "information" about Bosworth.

Carol

Im re-posting my reply to George as it seems to have got lost ..
Lol...George...not at all....There is a difference in giving your alternative viewpoint, as you just have, which is welcome, and in a polite way about it than 'blowing' someone's theory out of the water...In short...it is all down to attitudes and the way it is done. I just find sometimes it is done in a high handed and scathing manner. Its both rude and tedious....Eileen
> > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the water, does it?
> >




> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water, as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother, such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome. Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all of these in reproduction).
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely, him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > >
> > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was impaired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I did. Don't know if it will do any good.

Gilda



On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:43 PM, justcarol67 wrote:

>
> "EileenB" wrote:
>>
>> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has
>> already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed
>> him, will be buried in Leicester...
>> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
>>
>> Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that
> caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis
> would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the
> reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than
> "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other
> mistakes that keep recurring.)
>
> As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS
> and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so
> I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British
> say.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has
> already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would
> have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback.
> Good on yer, Gilda!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
I couldn't resist. I don't even usually read there!

Gilda

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol...you don't have to subscribe to the DM to be able to comment. But to tell you the truth it would be a complete waste of time..The quality of reporting is absymal...and a lot of the comments posted are moronic....I read some of the comments when the story of the discovery of possible remains of Richard had been found was first printed and a lot of the comments..supposed to be amusing I suppose...were deplorable...I cannot go there again...unless you really want me to...Eileen

Carol responds:

Thanks for the kind offer, Eileen, but I wouldn't ask you to do something that you clearly don't want to do. But it disturbs me that so many people are interpreting scoliosis as proof of a hunchback and a hunchback as proof of the Tudor legend.

If these people were Americans, they would believe that George Washington really chopped down a cherry "with his little hatchet." Only the nonsense with Richard III is far worse since it has been ingrained in the English mindset for centuries and because it so violently distorts the historical truth.

Carol

You're quite correct, and I don't know the info I used was the latest, but a certain kind of field mouse was implicated, as was the flea as vector. But you also know viruses mutate quickly; person-to-person contact is also suspected. As I said, I'm not a medical doctor or an epidemiologist, but the papers I read were convincing enough for my purposes (which, as I also said, became "fictional," as I couldn't very well write a decent paper on such considerable speculation). 

The hantavirus...or "like" the hantavirus. Unfortunately, the attempt to pinpoint this failed due to insufficient available RNA.

Also, even bacterial diseases can have varying manifestations. Y. pestis, the culprit in the Plague, can seemingly produce both the bubonic and pneumonic variations, and the pneumo form skips the vector, as I recall.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survivalââ¬Â¦..


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> The sweating sickness, now thought by many to have been a hantavirus disease, sometimes ran as much as a 12-hour course of increasing illness. About two years ago, I researched the sickness via the assistance of the library (and librarians) of the American Medical Association. (And my additional thanks to Lynn Rader, M.D., the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, for interpreting some of the more arcane data for me...).

Is your study connecting the sweating sickness with hanta virus, or any others, available? It's been some years, but I specialized in researching medical subjects, and it seems to me that the two diseases are dissimilar in important ways. For one, hanta virus is not directly contagious between human beings -- you need a vector -- and the sweating sickness was. And the vector is the deer mouse, which only exists in the western hemisphere. For another, pulmonary symptoms overshadow all others in hanta virus cases, whereas from the very name of the sweating sickness, fever and profuse sweating apparently were the outstanding characteristic.

The most recent thing I read was that, like the plague of Athens, the sweating sickness doesn't fit well with any currently known disease, and may have burned itself out of mutated into another form, as diseases, especially virulent ones, tend to do. My information may be very out of date, however, so I'd love to learn more.

Katy

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!

Carol responds:

Hooray! Thank you, Gilda!

Carol

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness.
>
>
> Marie, didn't some French king make a similar headlong charge at his counterpart on the other side, and thus win the battle that had been going badly for him?
>
> Richard, who surely had studied the art of war (if not The Art of War) might have been thinking of that tactic, it seems to me.
>
> Katy
>


Um, you may be right, Katy, but someone else would have to help me on that one. I think Norfolk's death would have been a disaster: lose the commander and the whole wing crumbles. And if Richard had managed to take Tudor, as he very well might have done, we would all be saying clever he was. But the reports of the battle, such as they are, suggest that he would countenance only two options, victory or death, and refused the chance to flee when given it. And how dd he get to the point where the Stanleys held the power of life and death over him? I know what Henry VII did with noblemen he didn't trust. He had them arrested until the danger was over and let someone else raise the levies.
Also, there are two separate questions:
1) Was Richard depressed?
2) What effect did it have on his decision-making?
I think he cannot have been unaffected by all that he had recently been through. It may not have made him suicidal, but the long-drawn-out stress may have made him more reckless than previously. Somebody suggested to me he may have just thought 'Blow it! let's just charge and get it over with.'
Marie

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
>


It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.

And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.

As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.

Katy

The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and brave
> commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
>
>
>
> Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except
> that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet
> by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> Exeter's line.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said
> this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry
> directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get
> him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the
> last.
>
> I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands
> of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the
> rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
>
> I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> was also Richard's opinion.
>
> Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the
> water, does it?
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking
> up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water,
> as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless
> manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different
> scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe
> desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that
> chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of
> course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> of these in reproduction).
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at
> that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing
> out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration
> - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly
> the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was
> impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think this is a good point, Eileen. I know that as soon as I got pregnant with my first child I got so much more careful crossing roads! It was no longer just about me. I know it isn't quite the same for men, but this was a man with no close family left to protect, and that may have made him more rash.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Another point...Would Richard have made this... extremely risky...decision to charge if Anne and his little son had still been alive. It has been said that he was offered a horse to make his escape...Now I do not know if this is true or not....but if it were or even if it were not... would he perhaps, with his family in mind, taken that chance..get the hell out of there and live on to fight another day. Still these types of decision have to be made in split seconds...and with hindsight and all that....Eileen
> --- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness.
> >
> >
> > Marie, didn't some French king make a similar headlong charge at his counterpart on the other side, and thus win the battle that had been going badly for him?
> >
> > Richard, who surely had studied the art of war (if not The Art of War) might have been thinking of that tactic, it seems to me.
> >
> > Katy
> >
>

Every little bit helps, Gilda! I saw some other caustic comments about them not even knowing which shire Worksop is located in (Nottinghamshire, not South Yorkshire, I think they said). Really makes you wonder!



Another cheer for you  huzza! :-)



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..






On Oct 28, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has
> already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would
> have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback.
> Good on yer, Gilda!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
I couldn't resist. I don't even usually read there!

Gilda

As I said, I have nothing to go on but the hypotheses I read...and my imperfect memory of the details. The fact I never committed to a "paper" ought to speak for itself, my dear.

In the SW US, Y. pestis is carried by fleas endemic on some small mammal - prairie dogs, I think. There are no prairie dogs in England or Europe, where the animal carrier was a rat. 

But I shall look for the old paper trail in a day or two, and list the authors, if it makes you feel better. I'd already offered for Marie.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
>

It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.

And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.

As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.

Katy

I've done, but as Eileen says it won't make any difference. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2012, 16:49
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

 
Carol...you don't have to subscribe to the DM to be able to comment. But to tell you the truth it would be a complete waste of time..The quality of reporting is absymal...and a lot of the comments posted are moronic....I read some of the comments when the story of the discovery of possible remains of Richard had been found was first printed and a lot of the comments..supposed to be amusing I suppose...were deplorable...I cannot go there again...unless you really want me to...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> > I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
> >
> > Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)
>
> As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think this is a good point, Eileen. I know that as soon as I got pregnant with my first child I got so much more careful crossing roads! It was no longer just about me. I know it isn't quite the same for men, but this was a man with no close family left to protect, and that may have made him more rash.
> Marie

Carol responds:

I agree. It's highly unlikely that he would have risked throwing away his life had his wife and especially his son been alive. And I doubt that the Stanleys and Northumberland have acted as they did if Richard had been secure on his throne, with a wife and son. Didn't Northumberland, at least, help him put down "Buckingham's" rebellion? At any rate, not of them joined it. I suspect that if he had already been married to Joana of Portugal, and especially if she had been pregnant, he would also have been cautious, and so would his self-serving enemies.

And, under those circumstances, if he really did have the sweating sickness, let's hope that he would have told his physicians that he was ill and postponed the battle!

Carol

The death of his son was a massive blow...I still wonder if Edward was poisoned...?
Eileen


>
> I agree. It's highly unlikely that he would have risked throwing away his life had his wife and especially his son been alive.
>

People are idiots.  I read some of the comments and had to stop - they are worse than the article.  I read the Mail online sometimes (it has its uses - without it I wouldn't know what a Kardashian was at all, although I am still a big vague about the specifics!) and it has gone from bad to worse. 


 
 

>
>
Carol responds:

Thanks for the kind offer, Eileen, but I wouldn't ask you to do something that you clearly don't want to do. But it disturbs me that so many people are interpreting scoliosis as proof of a hunchback and a hunchback as proof of the Tudor legend.

Katy have you read Dr Michael Jones "1485 The Psychology of a Battle" which has an alternative site for the Battle from Ambion Hill but his site is not far from where they recently found cannon balls and a silver boar.

Dr Jones found a letter in French archives written by a French mercenary who apparently fought at Bosworth. He describes a pike wall, a tactic that Richard would never have seen before. This is all from memory and please forgive me if I am not remembering properly. Dr Jones says that if Richard and his household where charging towards it they would not have been able to stop in time. He backs up his theories with evidence from a book written by a local man about Merevale Abbey, where The Tydder was supposed to have spent the night before the battle.

Just another theory re the battle. I have to say this is what I like about this forum. People questioning what could have happened. In view of the lack of definite evidence it is good to bat ideas back and forth and while we may never find out exactly what happened it is good to discuss alternative circumstances to those prefered by the traditionalists.

Mary

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness.
>
>
> Marie, didn't some French king make a similar headlong charge at his counterpart on the other side, and thus win the battle that had been going badly for him?
>
> Richard, who surely had studied the art of war (if not The Art of War) might have been thinking of that tactic, it seems to me.
>
> Katy
>

Theyre are some really nasty, sick people about arent there....I dont read the comments any more...but you really do wonder what makes these people tick?
Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> People are idiots.  I read some of the comments and had to stop - they are worse than the article.  I read the Mail online sometimes (it has its uses - without it I wouldn't know what a Kardashian was at all, although I am still a big vague about the specifics!) and it has gone from bad to worse. 
>
>
>  
>  
>
> >
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks for the kind offer, Eileen, but I wouldn't ask you to do something that you clearly don't want to do. But it disturbs me that so many people are interpreting scoliosis as proof of a hunchback and a hunchback as proof of the Tudor legend.
>
>
>

Well said, Mary.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 
Katy have you read Dr Michael Jones "1485 The Psychology of a Battle" which has an alternative site for the Battle from Ambion Hill but his site is not far from where they recently found cannon balls and a silver boar.

Dr Jones found a letter in French archives written by a French mercenary who apparently fought at Bosworth. He describes a pike wall, a tactic that Richard would never have seen before. This is all from memory and please forgive me if I am not remembering properly. Dr Jones says that if Richard and his household where charging towards it they would not have been able to stop in time. He backs up his theories with evidence from a book written by a local man about Merevale Abbey, where The Tydder was supposed to have spent the night before the battle.

Just another theory re the battle. I have to say this is what I like about this forum. People questioning what could have happened. In view of the lack of definite evidence it is good to bat ideas back and forth and while we may never find out exactly what happened it is good to discuss alternative circumstances to those prefered by the traditionalists.

Mary

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't go along with the idea that Richard fought Bosworth whilst suffering from sweating sickness.
>
>
> Marie, didn't some French king make a similar headlong charge at his counterpart on the other side, and thus win the battle that had been going badly for him?
>
> Richard, who surely had studied the art of war (if not The Art of War) might have been thinking of that tactic, it seems to me.
>
> Katy
>

Tuesday, the 23rd, would have been regarded as ominous. It was an Innocents' Day (same day of the week as Childermas of the preceding year). So there's another wee element to throw into the mix....

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..


 


--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think this is a good point, Eileen. I know that as soon as I got pregnant with my first child I got so much more careful crossing roads! It was no longer just about me. I know it isn't quite the same for men, but this was a man with no close family left to protect, and that may have made him more rash.
> Marie

Carol responds:

I agree. It's highly unlikely that he would have risked throwing away his life had his wife and especially his son been alive. And I doubt that the Stanleys and Northumberland have acted as they did if Richard had been secure on his throne, with a wife and son. Didn't Northumberland, at least, help him put down "Buckingham's" rebellion? At any rate, not of them joined it. I suspect that if he had already been married to Joana of Portugal, and especially if she had been pregnant, he would also have been cautious, and so would his self-serving enemies.

And, under those circumstances, if he really did have the sweating sickness, let's hope that he would have told his physicians that he was ill and postponed the battle!

Carol

Indeed. I am not too surprised that the information on Barnet is a bit . . .
spotty. It is true for so many battles – the fog of war, the incompleteness
of the record, and all that, even ones much later than these we are
discussing. I am re-reading Kendall now, but I am still near the beginning.
It is a wonderful bio, but I will be sure to scrutinize the notes carefully.
Thanks for the tip!



I’m finding that I’m skipping from one text to another – I want to read all
of them at once! The problem is that I often can’t recall where I’ve read
something. Ah, the old memory, which used to be like a steel trap, is more
like a sieve now, alas!



I’ll be happy if I can become comfortable reading 15th. century English,
which I’m definitely not at this point, then there’s Latin and Medieval
French, which I am sure would come in handy from time to time.



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival





The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who
Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a
lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole
fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often
excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and
brave
> commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mcjohn_wt_net
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
>
>
>
> Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well,
except
> that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at
Barnet
> by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> Exeter's line.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have
said
> this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged
Henry
> directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and
get
> him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately,
the
> last.
>
> I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the
hands
> of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for
the
> rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
>
> I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> was also Richard's opinion.
>
> Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of
the
> water, does it?
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely
barking
> up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the
water,
> as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather
reckless
> manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally
different
> scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and
maybe
> desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to
that
> chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic
graphologist...of
> course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> of these in reproduction).
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes
at
> that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole
thing
> out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an
aberration
> - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > >
> > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept
badly
> the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement
was
> impaired.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, All!

More new ones to me. I hadn’t heard about Richard drinking from a well or
about him supposedly skipping Mass. Don’t know about the former; but in
regard to skipping Mass. That doesn’t ring true. Certainly everyone there
knew there was a good chance they wouldn’t come back that day, and they
would have taken the opportunity to have attended Mass, confessed their sins
and probably even be shriven. Suggesting that Richard skipped Mass sounds
like another slander designed to suggest that he went to his reward with his
grievous crimes on his conscience – and thus would have been headed for the
warm place down below. Although I can’t guarantee that Richard went to
paradise, I can pretty well guarantee that he would have been in good stead
with Holy Mother Church at the time of his death.



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..





Would a king really have had to drink from a well? It just doesnt ring true
to me...as the story he didnt have any breakfast or Mass...As Marie just
said...we now know that the well is far away from the battle site...It just
goes to show how easily peoples can get legend and truth all in a muddle.
Eileen

Recent Activity:

·
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
mdpN3U1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTE0NDUzMjA-?o=6> New Members 1


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlM2plM2lzB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MTQ0NTMyMA--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkb25uMmEwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUxNDQ1MzIw>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest •
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe • <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use •
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=17790/stime=1351445320/nc1=4025321/nc2=3848621/nc3=5008815>

Lol...I know what you mean Johanne....trouble remembering where you read something from....I wish I had kept notes of interesting snippets of information. I always mean to but never get around to it....Eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed. I am not too surprised that the information on Barnet is a bit . . .
> spotty. It is true for so many battles – the fog of war, the incompleteness
> of the record, and all that, even ones much later than these we are
> discussing. I am re-reading Kendall now, but I am still near the beginning.
> It is a wonderful bio, but I will be sure to scrutinize the notes carefully.
> Thanks for the tip!
>
>
>
> I'm finding that I'm skipping from one text to another – I want to read all
> of them at once! The problem is that I often can't recall where I've read
> something. Ah, the old memory, which used to be like a steel trap, is more
> like a sieve now, alas!
>
>
>
> I'll be happy if I can become comfortable reading 15th. century English,
> which I'm definitely not at this point, then there's Latin and Medieval
> French, which I am sure would come in handy from time to time.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:04 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
>
>
>
> The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who
> Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a
> lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole
> fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often
> excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and
> brave
> > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> mcjohn_wt_net
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well,
> except
> > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at
> Barnet
> > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > Exeter's line.
> >
> > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have
> said
> > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged
> Henry
> > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and
> get
> > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately,
> the
> > last.
> >
> > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the
> hands
> > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for
> the
> > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> >
> > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> > was also Richard's opinion.
> >
> > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of
> the
> > water, does it?
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely
> barking
> > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the
> water,
> > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather
> reckless
> > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally
> different
> > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and
> maybe
> > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to
> that
> > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic
> graphologist...of
> > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> > of these in reproduction).
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes
> at
> > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole
> thing
> > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an
> aberration
> > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > >
> > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept
> badly
> > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement
> was
> > impaired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Was someone in Hastings family connected to Catesby by marriage? A step daughter maybe....????

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Lol...I know what you mean Johanne....trouble remembering where you read something from....I wish I had kept notes of interesting snippets of information. I always mean to but never get around to it....Eileen
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. I am not too surprised that the information on Barnet is a bit . . .
> > spotty. It is true for so many battles – the fog of war, the incompleteness
> > of the record, and all that, even ones much later than these we are
> > discussing. I am re-reading Kendall now, but I am still near the beginning.
> > It is a wonderful bio, but I will be sure to scrutinize the notes carefully.
> > Thanks for the tip!
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm finding that I'm skipping from one text to another – I want to read all
> > of them at once! The problem is that I often can't recall where I've read
> > something. Ah, the old memory, which used to be like a steel trap, is more
> > like a sieve now, alas!
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll be happy if I can become comfortable reading 15th. century English,
> > which I'm definitely not at this point, then there's Latin and Medieval
> > French, which I am sure would come in handy from time to time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:04 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who
> > Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a
> > lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole
> > fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often
> > excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> > <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and
> > brave
> > > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> > > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> > > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mcjohn_wt_net
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well,
> > except
> > > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at
> > Barnet
> > > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> > > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> > > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> > > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > > Exeter's line.
> > >
> > > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> > > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have
> > said
> > > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> > > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> > > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> > > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged
> > Henry
> > > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and
> > get
> > > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> > > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately,
> > the
> > > last.
> > >
> > > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the
> > hands
> > > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for
> > the
> > > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> > >
> > > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> > > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> > > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> > > was also Richard's opinion.
> > >
> > > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of
> > the
> > > water, does it?
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely
> > barking
> > > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the
> > water,
> > > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather
> > reckless
> > > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally
> > different
> > > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and
> > maybe
> > > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to
> > that
> > > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic
> > graphologist...of
> > > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> > > of these in reproduction).
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> > > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes
> > at
> > > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> > > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole
> > thing
> > > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> > > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> > > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an
> > aberration
> > > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> > > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> > > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept
> > badly
> > > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> > > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement
> > was
> > > impaired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Lol...I know what you mean Johanne....trouble remembering where you read something from....I wish I had kept notes of interesting snippets of information. I always mean to but never get around to it....Eileen


I'm the same. When I got interested in Richard III (from the Tey novel, like so many other people) and started reading about him, then the Middle Ages in general, I didn't know anyone else who was interested. Consequently, I didn't make any notes about where I read something, so you'll see a lot of my posts here that begin with "I read somewhere that...."

Katy

Hi, Eileen –



LOL! I am going to be driven to underlining these books soon, although I
hate to do it – I don’t know why; I make notes and underline in all my
school textbooks.



Just today, I was trying to find if it was in Tey that I read about Richard
making earnest efforts to bring the Lancastrians into the fold and thus end
all the animosity of the WotR. Then I read a great line about Edward –
something about him being the biggest wencher of all the English kings,
excepting only Charles II – but those weren’t her exact words. I never did
find the part about bring Yorkists and Lancastrians together (I’m pretty
sure it’s in there somewhere), and when I went back to look for the Edward =
wencher line, I couldn’t find it. Duh!



Ta-ta for now. I watched the Olivier *Richard III* for the first time last
week, and tonight I’m listening to the commentary track. I love it! I just
tell myself “It’s Richard’s evil twin and not the real Richard.” <grin>



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival





Lol...I know what you mean Johanne....trouble remembering where you read
something from....I wish I had kept notes of interesting snippets of
information. I always mean to but never get around to it....Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Indeed. I am not too surprised that the information on Barnet is a bit . .
.
> spotty. It is true for so many battles – the fog of war, the
incompleteness
> of the record, and all that, even ones much later than these we are
> discussing. I am re-reading Kendall now, but I am still near the
beginning.
> It is a wonderful bio, but I will be sure to scrutinize the notes
carefully.
> Thanks for the tip!
>
>
>
> I'm finding that I'm skipping from one text to another – I want to read
all
> of them at once! The problem is that I often can't recall where I've read
> something. Ah, the old memory, which used to be like a steel trap, is more
> like a sieve now, alas!
>
>
>
> I'll be happy if I can become comfortable reading 15th. century English,
> which I'm definitely not at this point, then there's Latin and Medieval
> French, which I am sure would come in handy from time to time.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:04 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
>
>
>
> The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who
> Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does
a
> lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the
whole
> fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often
> excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> Marie
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and
> brave
> > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt
it
> > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he
knew
> > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> mcjohn_wt_net
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well,
> except
> > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at
> Barnet
> > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall,
Richard
> > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to
utter
> > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility,
hampered
> > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > Exeter's line.
> >
> > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge
took
> > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have
> said
> > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that
assessment
> > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley
was
> > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when
he
> > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged
> Henry
> > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and
> get
> > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a
former
> > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately,
> the
> > last.
> >
> > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the
> hands
> > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for
> the
> > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> >
> > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I
can't
> > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his
coat
> > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that
that
> > was also Richard's opinion.
> >
> > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of
> the
> > water, does it?
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely
> barking
> > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the
> water,
> > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather
> reckless
> > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally
> different
> > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and
> maybe
> > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to
> that
> > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic
> graphologist...of
> > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and
all
> > of these in reproduction).
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession.
Surely,
> > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes
> at
> > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn
scenario
> > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole
> thing
> > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging
over
> > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had
been
> > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an
> aberration
> > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was
a
> > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't
know
> > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > >
> > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept
> badly
> > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may
have
> > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement
> was
> > impaired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne...I sometimes have about 5 or 6 books open around me at strategic places...I love to read in bed but the cat insists on sitting on the book I am reading....its so duh?

Seriously we must buy ourselves notebooks....Eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen –
>
>
>
> LOL! I am going to be driven to underlining these books soon, although I
> hate to do it – I don't know why; I make notes and underline in all my
> school textbooks.
>
>
>
> Just today, I was trying to find if it was in Tey that I read about Richard
> making earnest efforts to bring the Lancastrians into the fold and thus end
> all the animosity of the WotR. Then I read a great line about Edward –
> something about him being the biggest wencher of all the English kings,
> excepting only Charles II – but those weren't her exact words. I never did
> find the part about bring Yorkists and Lancastrians together (I'm pretty
> sure it's in there somewhere), and when I went back to look for the Edward =
> wencher line, I couldn't find it. Duh!
>
>
>
> Ta-ta for now. I watched the Olivier *Richard III* for the first time last
> week, and tonight I'm listening to the commentary track. I love it! I just
> tell myself "It's Richard's evil twin and not the real Richard." <grin>
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:22 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
>
>
>
> Lol...I know what you mean Johanne....trouble remembering where you read
> something from....I wish I had kept notes of interesting snippets of
> information. I always mean to but never get around to it....Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. I am not too surprised that the information on Barnet is a bit . .
> .
> > spotty. It is true for so many battles – the fog of war, the
> incompleteness
> > of the record, and all that, even ones much later than these we are
> > discussing. I am re-reading Kendall now, but I am still near the
> beginning.
> > It is a wonderful bio, but I will be sure to scrutinize the notes
> carefully.
> > Thanks for the tip!
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm finding that I'm skipping from one text to another – I want to read
> all
> > of them at once! The problem is that I often can't recall where I've read
> > something. Ah, the old memory, which used to be like a steel trap, is more
> > like a sieve now, alas!
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll be happy if I can become comfortable reading 15th. century English,
> > which I'm definitely not at this point, then there's Latin and Medieval
> > French, which I am sure would come in handy from time to time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:04 PM
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who
> > Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does
> a
> > lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the
> whole
> > fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often
> > excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> > <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and
> > brave
> > > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt
> it
> > > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he
> knew
> > > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mcjohn_wt_net
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well,
> > except
> > > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at
> > Barnet
> > > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall,
> Richard
> > > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to
> utter
> > > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility,
> hampered
> > > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > > Exeter's line.
> > >
> > > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge
> took
> > > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have
> > said
> > > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that
> assessment
> > > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley
> was
> > > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when
> he
> > > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged
> > Henry
> > > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and
> > get
> > > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a
> former
> > > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately,
> > the
> > > last.
> > >
> > > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the
> > hands
> > > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for
> > the
> > > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> > >
> > > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I
> can't
> > > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his
> coat
> > > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that
> that
> > > was also Richard's opinion.
> > >
> > > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of
> > the
> > > water, does it?
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely
> > barking
> > > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the
> > water,
> > > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather
> > reckless
> > > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally
> > different
> > > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and
> > maybe
> > > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to
> > that
> > > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic
> > graphologist...of
> > > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and
> all
> > > of these in reproduction).
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession.
> Surely,
> > > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes
> > at
> > > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn
> scenario
> > > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole
> > thing
> > > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging
> over
> > > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had
> been
> > > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an
> > aberration
> > > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was
> a
> > > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't
> know
> > > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept
> > badly
> > > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may
> have
> > > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement
> > was
> > > impaired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes indeedy! Actually, that’s a great idea!



My dear late husband Arthur had a saying that’s appropriate, “You have a
good memory, but it’s short!” <grin>



(Note to self: get 3-ring binder and lots of paper. . . )



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival





Johanne...I sometimes have about 5 or 6 books open around me at strategic
places...I love to read in bed but the cat insists on sitting on the book I
am reading....its so duh?

Seriously we must buy ourselves notebooks....Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen –
>
>
>
> LOL! I am going to be driven to underlining these books soon, although I
> hate to do it – I don't know why; I make notes and underline in all my
> school textbooks.
>
>
>
> Just today, I was trying to find if it was in Tey that I read about
Richard
> making earnest efforts to bring the Lancastrians into the fold and thus
end
> all the animosity of the WotR. Then I read a great line about Edward –
> something about him being the biggest wencher of all the English kings,
> excepting only Charles II – but those weren't her exact words. I never did
> find the part about bring Yorkists and Lancastrians together (I'm pretty
> sure it's in there somewhere), and when I went back to look for the Edward
=
> wencher line, I couldn't find it. Duh!
>
>
>
> Ta-ta for now. I watched the Olivier *Richard III* for the first time last
> week, and tonight I'm listening to the commentary track. I love it! I just
> tell myself "It's Richard's evil twin and not the real Richard." <grin>
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:22 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
>
>
>
> Lol...I know what you mean Johanne....trouble remembering where you read
> something from....I wish I had kept notes of interesting snippets of
> information. I always mean to but never get around to it....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. I am not too surprised that the information on Barnet is a bit .
.
> .
> > spotty. It is true for so many battles – the fog of war, the
> incompleteness
> > of the record, and all that, even ones much later than these we are
> > discussing. I am re-reading Kendall now, but I am still near the
> beginning.
> > It is a wonderful bio, but I will be sure to scrutinize the notes
> carefully.
> > Thanks for the tip!
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm finding that I'm skipping from one text to another – I want to read
> all
> > of them at once! The problem is that I often can't recall where I've
read
> > something. Ah, the old memory, which used to be like a steel trap, is
more
> > like a sieve now, alas!
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll be happy if I can become comfortable reading 15th. century English,
> > which I'm definitely not at this point, then there's Latin and Medieval
> > French, which I am sure would come in handy from time to time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> mariewalsh2003
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 3:04 PM
> > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who
> > Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall
does
> a
> > lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the
> whole
> > fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his
often
> > excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
> > <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and
> > brave
> > > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before
in
> > > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have
felt
> it
> > > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he
> knew
> > > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
> > mcjohn_wt_net
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well,
> > except
> > > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at
> > Barnet
> > > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall,
> Richard
> > > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched
off
> > > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to
> utter
> > > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility,
> hampered
> > > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > > Exeter's line.
> > >
> > > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge
> took
> > > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators
have
> > said
> > > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that
> assessment
> > > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley
> was
> > > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when
> he
> > > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged
> > Henry
> > > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops
and
> > get
> > > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a
> former
> > > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was,
unfortunately,
> > the
> > > last.
> > >
> > > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal
or
> > > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander,
to
> > > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the
> > hands
> > > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little
problem
> > > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight
for
> > the
> > > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> > >
> > > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I
> can't
> > > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his
> coat
> > > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that
> that
> > > was also Richard's opinion.
> > >
> > > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out
of
> > the
> > > water, does it?
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely
> > barking
> > > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the
> > water,
> > > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather
> > reckless
> > > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his
brother,
> > > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally
> > different
> > > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and
> > maybe
> > > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get
to
> > that
> > > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in
his
> > > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just
my
> > > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic
> > graphologist...of
> > > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and
> all
> > > of these in reproduction).
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s
survival…..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession.
> Surely,
> > > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his
attitudes
> > at
> > > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn
> scenario
> > > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole
> > thing
> > > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging
> over
> > > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had
> been
> > > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an
> > aberration
> > > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there
was
> a
> > > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't
> know
> > > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept
> > badly
> > > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may
> have
> > > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his
judgement
> > was
> > > impaired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I can't remember the details, but there was an article in the Ricardian many many years ago showing that this was also said of the loser of a xcontinental battle. I've got a feeling it may also have been said of Warwick before 2nd St Albans. It's a trope: the withdrawal of divine favour is shown by the inability to get a mass going.
Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All!
>
> More new ones to me. I hadn't heard about Richard drinking from a well or
> about him supposedly skipping Mass. Don't know about the former; but in
> regard to skipping Mass. That doesn't ring true. Certainly everyone there
> knew there was a good chance they wouldn't come back that day, and they
> would have taken the opportunity to have attended Mass, confessed their sins
> and probably even be shriven. Suggesting that Richard skipped Mass sounds
> like another slander designed to suggest that he went to his reward with his
> grievous crimes on his conscience – and thus would have been headed for the
> warm place down below. Although I can't guarantee that Richard went to
> paradise, I can pretty well guarantee that he would have been in good stead
> with Holy Mother Church at the time of his death.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:29 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
>
>
>
>
>
> Would a king really have had to drink from a well? It just doesnt ring true
> to me...as the story he didnt have any breakfast or Mass...As Marie just
> said...we now know that the well is far away from the battle site...It just
> goes to show how easily peoples can get legend and truth all in a muddle.
> Eileen
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> ·
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb
> mdpN3U1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTE0NDUzMjA-?o=6> New Members 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlM2plM2lzB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1MTQ0NTMyMA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkb25uMmEwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzUxNDQ1MzIw>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest •
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe • <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use •
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =17790/stime=1351445320/nc1=4025321/nc2=3848621/nc3=5008815>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Great! Someone posted a comment!"

"Oh, yeah? What does it say?"

"Oh, that? I don't know. I didn't read it."

--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> I did. Don't know if it will do any good.
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2012, at 12:43 PM, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> >>
> >> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has
> >> already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed
> >> him, will be buried in Leicester...
> >> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
> >>
> >> Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that
> > caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis
> > would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the
> > reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than
> > "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other
> > mistakes that keep recurring.)
> >
> > As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS
> > and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so
> > I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British
> > say.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Yes, that's quite so. I also liked Dr. Kendall's habit of documenting the sources of his extrapolations: it made me trust him a lot more when I was able to keep in mind that he was building an extensive, detailed narrative of Richard's presence at something or other on a mention in one of his letters that he was in such-and-such a place just then.

Too, a lot of the story on Richard III's life is a preponderance-of-the-evidence reconstruction: he was praised, admired, and rewarded for his actions in helping to get Edward's throne back for him at Barnet and Tewkesbury, so I would think it's reasonable to assume his courage and competence as a battlefield commander. I wasn't aware that there was a question about his participation in the Battle of Barnet, although it's definitely the case that detailed, reliable descriptions of the battles of the Edward IV/Richard III reigns, if they exist, have not yet come to light.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> Marie
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and brave
> > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except
> > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet
> > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > Exeter's line.
> >
> > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said
> > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry
> > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get
> > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the
> > last.
> >
> > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands
> > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the
> > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> >
> > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> > was also Richard's opinion.
> >
> > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the
> > water, does it?
> >
> > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking
> > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water,
> > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless
> > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different
> > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe
> > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that
> > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of
> > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> > of these in reproduction).
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at
> > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing
> > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration
> > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > >
> > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly
> > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was
> > impaired.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Was someone in Hastings family connected to Catesby by marriage? A step daughter maybe....????

Carol responds:

Funny you should ask that question. As I mentioned the other day, I'm reading Peter A. Hancock's "Murder in the Tower," which connects Catesby with, of all people, Margaret Beaufort (and therefore Thomas Stanley by marriage). Hancock suggests, among other things, that Catesby may have asked Richard to release Stanley from prison after Hastings's execution (which would help to explain why he expected Stanley to speak for him after Bosworth). He also suggests that Catesby was connected by marriage to *Eleanor Butler* (nee Talbot) and that he wrote or helped to write Titulus Regius (quite likely given that he had been appointed Speaker), that he, not Stillington, informed Richard of the precontract, and it was for that, not for sounding out Hastings's loyalties, that Richard rewarded him. He calls Catesby "The Cat" (after Colyngbourne's rhyme) and suggests that he was both a highly gifted lawyer (which would be why Richard appreciated him) and a very ambitious man who was after Hastings's and Buckingham's lands. That's as far as I've gotten, and I have no idea how to feel about all this. Hancock has made at least one mistake, stating without evidence that Richard Ratcliffe rode to York with the writs for the executions of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey, which we know to be untrue since there was a trial, but the connection between Catesby's family and the Talbots is very interesting. I wish that Hancock's style were a little less dry, but he certainly is entering some new territory (apparently following up on Ashdown-Hill's "Secret Queen," which I haven't yet read. Anyway, if what Hancock says about Catesby as the person who informed Richard of the precontract, proved its existence, and afterwards wrote Titulus Regius is true, no wonder Henry Tudor executed him but merely imprisoned Richard's other followers. i haven't finished the book, so that's as much as I know of Hancock's argument at this point.

Just wondering what prompted you to ask that particular question, which doesn't seem to follow directly from what we've been discussing.

Carol

No question at all over his participation, and that he was slightly wounded. But not much is clear about the proceedings except that Oxford's wing broke and started to flee towards Barnet and Oxford regrouped them and brought them back only to have the Nevilles mistake their badge for that of Edward IV and fire on them. As has been pointed out, the fog must have made sure that even those present didn't have much idea what was going on. I'll check tomorrow on the source for Richard's having commanded the right wing.
Marie


--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, that's quite so. I also liked Dr. Kendall's habit of documenting the sources of his extrapolations: it made me trust him a lot more when I was able to keep in mind that he was building an extensive, detailed narrative of Richard's presence at something or other on a mention in one of his letters that he was in such-and-such a place just then.
>
> Too, a lot of the story on Richard III's life is a preponderance-of-the-evidence reconstruction: he was praised, admired, and rewarded for his actions in helping to get Edward's throne back for him at Barnet and Tewkesbury, so I would think it's reasonable to assume his courage and competence as a battlefield commander. I wasn't aware that there was a question about his participation in the Battle of Barnet, although it's definitely the case that detailed, reliable descriptions of the battles of the Edward IV/Richard III reigns, if they exist, have not yet come to light.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and brave
> > > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> > > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> > > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Johanne
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Email - jltournier60@
> > >
> > > or jltournier@
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > >
> > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except
> > > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet
> > > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> > > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> > > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> > > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > > Exeter's line.
> > >
> > > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> > > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said
> > > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> > > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> > > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> > > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry
> > > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get
> > > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> > > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the
> > > last.
> > >
> > > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands
> > > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the
> > > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> > >
> > > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> > > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> > > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> > > was also Richard's opinion.
> > >
> > > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the
> > > water, does it?
> > >
> > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking
> > > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water,
> > > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless
> > > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different
> > > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe
> > > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that
> > > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of
> > > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> > > of these in reproduction).
> > > > >
> > > > > Judy
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> > > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at
> > > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> > > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing
> > > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> > > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> > > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration
> > > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> > > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> > > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly
> > > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> > > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was
> > > impaired.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie and Katy: After rattling through three binders full of notes, I have so far found only a couple of my pages, though I feel there may still remain others, especially as the one article has at least one additional page, which is no longer following. Also, I recall more recent references, just can't find them. Keep in mind, these are like a semi-discarded file, as I had already abandoned the notion of a serious paper in favour of writing fiction, but hoarder that I am, hadn't yet disposed of what I wouldn't use - just kind of stuffed it, higgledy-piggledy, into my already swollen binders:

Medical History, 1998, 42; 96-98. Comment: The English Sweating Sickness, 1485-1551: A Viral Pulmonary Disease?Mark Taviner, Guy Thwaites, Vanya Gant.

Then there are hand written Post Its, referencing A. Dyer, "The English sweating sickness of 1551: an epidemic anatomized," Medical History, 1997, 41. [no pages cited] and on a subsequent page, my comments about "hanta" and "Henry Brandon, Duke of Suff[olk] not enough stable RNA for def[initive] diag[nosis]?" and "DISCOVER, June 97"

Sorry. There are probably a dozen other pieces of paper, but since nothing here is organized, I was lucky to spot this photocopy and the sheet that followed; much of the rest is handwritten and liable to be in any order, at this point.

Regards,
Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
>

It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.

And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.

As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.

Katy

Dr. Kendall says he based his re-creation of Barnet on the "Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England" (that Yorkist version of events, which would have reason to boost Richard's role, not that his reputation afterwards would mean it was untrue), a letter by Margaret of Burgundy, a report by a German who was present, and the Paston letters, all of which sources he calls "authoritative but sketchy". He says that, in addition, Vergil, Fabyan, the "Chronicle of London", and even Commynes are in rough agreement about details such as the location and the casualty numbers. He also expresses his indebtedness to an author named Burne who wrote extensively of Barnet in his or her book "Battlefields of England". Unfortunately, Dr. Kendall doesn't make an explicit statement about how he determined that Richard really was in command of the right wing.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> No question at all over his participation, and that he was slightly wounded. But not much is clear about the proceedings except that Oxford's wing broke and started to flee towards Barnet and Oxford regrouped them and brought them back only to have the Nevilles mistake their badge for that of Edward IV and fire on them. As has been pointed out, the fog must have made sure that even those present didn't have much idea what was going on. I'll check tomorrow on the source for Richard's having commanded the right wing.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's quite so. I also liked Dr. Kendall's habit of documenting the sources of his extrapolations: it made me trust him a lot more when I was able to keep in mind that he was building an extensive, detailed narrative of Richard's presence at something or other on a mention in one of his letters that he was in such-and-such a place just then.
> >
> > Too, a lot of the story on Richard III's life is a preponderance-of-the-evidence reconstruction: he was praised, admired, and rewarded for his actions in helping to get Edward's throne back for him at Barnet and Tewkesbury, so I would think it's reasonable to assume his courage and competence as a battlefield commander. I wasn't aware that there was a question about his participation in the Battle of Barnet, although it's definitely the case that detailed, reliable descriptions of the battles of the Edward IV/Richard III reigns, if they exist, have not yet come to light.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and brave
> > > > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > > > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > > > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> > > > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> > > > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Johanne
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > >
> > > > or jltournier@
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > >
> > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:
> > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except
> > > > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet
> > > > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> > > > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > > > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> > > > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> > > > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > > > Exeter's line.
> > > >
> > > > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> > > > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said
> > > > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> > > > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> > > > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> > > > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry
> > > > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get
> > > > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> > > > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the
> > > > last.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > > > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > > > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands
> > > > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > > > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the
> > > > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> > > >
> > > > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> > > > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > > > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> > > > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> > > > was also Richard's opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the
> > > > water, does it?
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking
> > > > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water,
> > > > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > > > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless
> > > > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > > > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different
> > > > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe
> > > > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that
> > > > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > > > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > > > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > > > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > > > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of
> > > > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> > > > of these in reproduction).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > > > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> > > > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at
> > > > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> > > > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing
> > > > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> > > > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> > > > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > > > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > > > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration
> > > > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > > > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> > > > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> > > > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > > > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly
> > > > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> > > > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > > > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was
> > > > impaired.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Marie and Katy: After rattling through three binders full of notes, I have so far found only a couple of my pages, though I feel there may still remain others, especially as the one article has at least one additional page, which is no longer following. Also, I recall more recent references, just can't find them. Keep in mind, these are like a semi-discarded file, as I had already abandoned the notion of a serious paper in favour of writing fiction, but hoarder that I am, hadn't yet disposed of what I wouldn't use - just kind of stuffed it, higgledy-piggledy, into my already swollen binders:
>
> Medical History, 1998, 42; 96-98. Comment: The English Sweating Sickness, 1485-1551: A Viral Pulmonary Disease?Mark Taviner, Guy Thwaites, Vanya Gant.
>
> Then there are hand written Post Its, referencing A. Dyer, "The English sweating sickness of 1551: an epidemic anatomized," Medical History, 1997, 41. [no pages cited] and on a subsequent page, my comments about "hanta" and "Henry Brandon, Duke of Suff[olk] not enough stable RNA for def[initive] diag[nosis]?" and "DISCOVER, June 97"
>
> Sorry. There are probably a dozen other pieces of paper, but since nothing here is organized, I was lucky to spot this photocopy and the sheet that followed; much of the rest is handwritten and liable to be in any order, at this point.
>



Thanks for digging out your notes and sources, Judy. I'll try to look into them and maybe find some other material. I'm an epidemiology wonk. I'm fascinated with how disease and individual illnesses shape history.

Katy

You're welcome. I'm sure there's more, here, but it's pretty disorganized, now, since I used whatever I wanted or needed, over a year ago. My fictional characters would be more inclined to believe they suffered severe perturbations of their humours than viral infections ;-)

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Marie and Katy: After rattling through three binders full of notes, I have so far found only a couple of my pages, though I feel there may still remain others, especially as the one article has at least one additional page, which is no longer following. Also, I recall more recent references, just can't find them. Keep in mind, these are like a semi-discarded file, as I had already abandoned the notion of a serious paper in favour of writing fiction, but hoarder that I am, hadn't yet disposed of what I wouldn't use - just kind of stuffed it, higgledy-piggledy, into my already swollen binders:
>
> Medical History, 1998, 42; 96-98. Comment: The English Sweating Sickness, 1485-1551: A Viral Pulmonary Disease?Mark Taviner, Guy Thwaites, Vanya Gant.
>
> Then there are hand written Post Its, referencing A. Dyer, "The English sweating sickness of 1551: an epidemic anatomized," Medical History, 1997, 41. [no pages cited] and on a subsequent page, my comments about "hanta" and "Henry Brandon, Duke of Suff[olk] not enough stable RNA for def[initive] diag[nosis]?" and "DISCOVER, June 97"
>
> Sorry. There are probably a dozen other pieces of paper, but since nothing here is organized, I was lucky to spot this photocopy and the sheet that followed; much of the rest is handwritten and liable to be in any order, at this point.
>

Thanks for digging out your notes and sources, Judy. I'll try to look into them and maybe find some other material. I'm an epidemiology wonk. I'm fascinated with how disease and individual illnesses shape history.

Katy

Eileen wrote:
>
> Johanne...I sometimes have about 5 or 6 books open around me at strategic places...I love to read in bed but the cat insists on sitting on the book I am reading....its so duh?
>
> Seriously we must buy ourselves notebooks....Eileen

Carol responds:

Or good old-fashioned index cards that you can file by author or subject. I used them for my 600-page doctoral dissertation back in the days of WordPerfect 4.2. Of course, you need a file box, rather like an old-fashioned recipe box with index tabs, to keep them sorted.

Carol

One aspect of all this in which I can't go along with Peter Hancock is regarding his claim that Catesby is likely to have been the person who advised Richard on the implications of the precontract because he was a lawyer. The implications of the prior marriage to Eleanor Butler for the validity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and the legitimacy of their children were a matter of canon, not common, law . It was a task for a person with a university degree in canon and civil law (all clerics) rather than an ordinary lay lawyer like Catesby.
Where Catesby might have come in is in advising Richard whether it was necessary to go through a church court in order to have Edward IV's children set aside for purposes of inheritance.
Marie


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Was someone in Hastings family connected to Catesby by marriage? A step daughter maybe....????
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Funny you should ask that question. As I mentioned the other day, I'm reading Peter A. Hancock's "Murder in the Tower," which connects Catesby with, of all people, Margaret Beaufort (and therefore Thomas Stanley by marriage). Hancock suggests, among other things, that Catesby may have asked Richard to release Stanley from prison after Hastings's execution (which would help to explain why he expected Stanley to speak for him after Bosworth). He also suggests that Catesby was connected by marriage to *Eleanor Butler* (nee Talbot) and that he wrote or helped to write Titulus Regius (quite likely given that he had been appointed Speaker), that he, not Stillington, informed Richard of the precontract, and it was for that, not for sounding out Hastings's loyalties, that Richard rewarded him. He calls Catesby "The Cat" (after Colyngbourne's rhyme) and suggests that he was both a highly gifted lawyer (which would be why Richard appreciated him) and a very ambitious man who was after Hastings's and Buckingham's lands. That's as far as I've gotten, and I have no idea how to feel about all this. Hancock has made at least one mistake, stating without evidence that Richard Ratcliffe rode to York with the writs for the executions of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey, which we know to be untrue since there was a trial, but the connection between Catesby's family and the Talbots is very interesting. I wish that Hancock's style were a little less dry, but he certainly is entering some new territory (apparently following up on Ashdown-Hill's "Secret Queen," which I haven't yet read. Anyway, if what Hancock says about Catesby as the person who informed Richard of the precontract, proved its existence, and afterwards wrote Titulus Regius is true, no wonder Henry Tudor executed him but merely imprisoned Richard's other followers. i haven't finished the book, so that's as much as I know of Hancock's argument at this point.
>
> Just wondering what prompted you to ask that particular question, which doesn't seem to follow directly from what we've been discussing.
>
> Carol
>

The Arrivall doesn't mention Richard or who commanded what wing. Another source I feel sure Kendall must have used is Warkworth, but he writes mainly from the perspective of the Earl of Oxford and doesn't mention Richard either. Von Wesel's letter doesn't tell us either. Vitellius AXVI, a London Chronicle of the 1490s, lists the names of the lords on either side but gives more than three on each side and doesn't talk about commanders of the various "battles". It is also rather late. Anyway, here it is:-
"... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke of Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir lordes and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford, with many other gentilmen."
You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army, but Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the lords present, not the commanders. A political poem written to celebrate the victory singles out Richard for particular praise so he evidently acquitted himself well, but I wonder given his age and that this was his frst battle whether he would have been let lose with commanding the right wing. He did do this at Tewkesbury, but by then he had proved himself.
Marie


--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Dr. Kendall says he based his re-creation of Barnet on the "Historie of the Arrivall of Edward IV in England" (that Yorkist version of events, which would have reason to boost Richard's role, not that his reputation afterwards would mean it was untrue), a letter by Margaret of Burgundy, a report by a German who was present, and the Paston letters, all of which sources he calls "authoritative but sketchy". He says that, in addition, Vergil, Fabyan, the "Chronicle of London", and even Commynes are in rough agreement about details such as the location and the casualty numbers. He also expresses his indebtedness to an author named Burne who wrote extensively of Barnet in his or her book "Battlefields of England". Unfortunately, Dr. Kendall doesn't make an explicit statement about how he determined that Richard really was in command of the right wing.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > No question at all over his participation, and that he was slightly wounded. But not much is clear about the proceedings except that Oxford's wing broke and started to flee towards Barnet and Oxford regrouped them and brought them back only to have the Nevilles mistake their badge for that of Edward IV and fire on them. As has been pointed out, the fog must have made sure that even those present didn't have much idea what was going on. I'll check tomorrow on the source for Richard's having commanded the right wing.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, that's quite so. I also liked Dr. Kendall's habit of documenting the sources of his extrapolations: it made me trust him a lot more when I was able to keep in mind that he was building an extensive, detailed narrative of Richard's presence at something or other on a mention in one of his letters that he was in such-and-such a place just then.
> > >
> > > Too, a lot of the story on Richard III's life is a preponderance-of-the-evidence reconstruction: he was praised, admired, and rewarded for his actions in helping to get Edward's throne back for him at Barnet and Tewkesbury, so I would think it's reasonable to assume his courage and competence as a battlefield commander. I wasn't aware that there was a question about his participation in the Battle of Barnet, although it's definitely the case that detailed, reliable descriptions of the battles of the Edward IV/Richard III reigns, if they exist, have not yet come to light.
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The problem is with the Barnet comparison, we don't know for sure who Edward's commanders were at Barnet or exactly what happened. Kendall does a lot of guesswork and then presents it in story form. Kendall is on the whole fine so long as you read the text for entertainment but turn to his often excellent notes for the facts upon which he built his tale.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That is really interesting, mcjohn! Of course Richard as a daring and brave
> > > > > commander may have realized that, as the Fascist saying went, "He who
> > > > > hesitates is lost." The fact that he had been successful years before in
> > > > > pulling off something that was so risky, suggests that he may have felt it
> > > > > was worth taking a chance once again. But I would still think that he knew
> > > > > that the odds were against a frontal assault succeeding.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne L. Tournier
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Email - jltournier60@
> > > > >
> > > > > or jltournier@
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "With God, all things are possible."
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jesus of Nazareth
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From:
> > > > > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:45 PM
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not by any means to blow any theories out of the water, but... well, except
> > > > > that he had already contributed significantly to victory in battle at Barnet
> > > > > by doing something similar. According to the learned Dr. Kendall, Richard
> > > > > served as commander of the right wing of Edward's forces and marched off
> > > > > into the predawn fog with his troops, a nearly certain invitation to utter
> > > > > annihilation, and overcame inhospitable terrain, low visibility, hampered
> > > > > communication, and serious troop loss to contain and eventually break
> > > > > Exeter's line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
> > > > > his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have said
> > > > > this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that assessment
> > > > > looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord Stanley was
> > > > > supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched sides when he
> > > > > saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he charged Henry
> > > > > directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his troops and get
> > > > > him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard gave a former
> > > > > opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was, unfortunately, the
> > > > > last.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not certain that Richard's final charge at Bosworth was suicidal or
> > > > > despairing; he had every reason, as an experienced battle commander, to
> > > > > expect victory. True, Oxford's troops had gotten a shellacking at the hands
> > > > > of the French mercenaries, but Richard handled that nasty little problem
> > > > > nicely by riding right around the French troops and making straight for the
> > > > > rusty-souled weasel who was paying them.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've looked at both Barnet and Bosworth (virtually, that is), and I can't
> > > > > really see any signs of miscalculation on Richard's part. I think the
> > > > > disaster at Bosworth is neatly explained by Lord Stanley turning his coat
> > > > > inside out; we have some evidence, from his last recorded words, that that
> > > > > was also Richard's opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Surely this... uh... this doesn't qualify as blowing your theory out of the
> > > > > water, does it?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Judy....It is only a suggestion..and I could be completely barking
> > > > > up the wrong tree here...and no doubt someone will blow it out of the water,
> > > > > as usual... but I feel it should be considered. Would a decision, by
> > > > > Richard, have been taken to charge in, what appears to me, a rather reckless
> > > > > manner in some of his earlier battles, where he fought with his brother,
> > > > > such as Towton, Barnet or Tewkesbury. Of course they were totally different
> > > > > scenarios but I am talking about, what looks to me, as a reckless and maybe
> > > > > desperate, although brave, very brave decision. I hate it when I get to that
> > > > > chapter in the books and so wish there had been a different outcome.
> > > > > Lol...like the Titanic....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
> > > > > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your suggestion is not absurd. Looking at Richard's signature in his
> > > > > last months, it looks significantly less optimistic (this isn't just my
> > > > > opinion; I showed his signature to a professional forensic graphologist...of
> > > > > course, we were only able to examine a limited number of examples, and all
> > > > > of these in reproduction).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Judy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:59 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > Possibly Richard was suffering from depression at that stage of
> > > > > life...he had suffered two major bereavements in quick succession. Surely,
> > > > > him being human, this may have taken its toil on him...and his attitudes at
> > > > > that time...Maybe he was just totally fed up with the whole damn scenario
> > > > > and just threw all caution to the wind in an attempt to sort the whole thing
> > > > > out once and for all....The threat of invasion must have been hanging over
> > > > > his head like the sword of Damocles for a long time and while he had been
> > > > > watching Anne's last illness and death....You have to equate the human
> > > > > factor into things...and its often overlooked. Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Jonathan Evans
> > > > > <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agree absolutely with Carol's response. Bosworth was an aberration
> > > > > - something that shouldn't have happened. There seems to be little
> > > > > obvious reason for Richard's charge at that point, unless there was a
> > > > > momentous collapse in the morale of the royal army that we don't know
> > > > > about (in contrast to just temporary stalemate and uncertainty when
> > > > > Norfolk's advance faltered).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In trying to guess at reasons behind the story that Richad slept badly
> > > > > the night before the battle, John Ashdown-Hill postulates that he may have
> > > > > been ill (drawing on the story of King Richard's Well, he very
> > > > > tentatively suggests sweating sickness) to an extent that his judgement was
> > > > > impaired.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Thanks very much for this, Judy. I'll see if I can track it down online.
Marie

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie and Katy: After rattling through three binders full of notes, I have so far found only a couple of my pages, though I feel there may still remain others, especially as the one article has at least one additional page, which is no longer following. Also, I recall more recent references, just can't find them. Keep in mind, these are like a semi-discarded file, as I had already abandoned the notion of a serious paper in favour of writing fiction, but hoarder that I am, hadn't yet disposed of what I wouldn't use - just kind of stuffed it, higgledy-piggledy, into my already swollen binders:
> >
> > Medical History, 1998, 42; 96-98. Comment: The English Sweating Sickness, 1485-1551: A Viral Pulmonary Disease?Mark Taviner, Guy Thwaites, Vanya Gant.
> >
> > Then there are hand written Post Its, referencing A. Dyer, "The English sweating sickness of 1551: an epidemic anatomized," Medical History, 1997, 41. [no pages cited] and on a subsequent page, my comments about "hanta" and "Henry Brandon, Duke of Suff[olk] not enough stable RNA for def[initive] diag[nosis]?" and "DISCOVER, June 97"
> >
> > Sorry. There are probably a dozen other pieces of paper, but since nothing here is organized, I was lucky to spot this photocopy and the sheet that followed; much of the rest is handwritten and liable to be in any order, at this point.
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks for digging out your notes and sources, Judy. I'll try to look into them and maybe find some other material. I'm an epidemiology wonk. I'm fascinated with how disease and individual illnesses shape history.
>
> Katy
>

As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual with Richard to give the legends some veracity.
Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies' ammunition.
Paul
On 28 Oct 2012, at 17:01, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:43 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
>>
>> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
>> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
>>
>> Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)
>
> As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.
>
> Carol
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi, Carol -

Actually in these days, a digital database file would be the way to go -
something that would allow for cross-indexing and searching. Is there a
software program, do you know, that would allow for that? For my biblical
studies, I've got Logos Bible Software, and it has a lot of those
capabilities. But I don't think I could plunk in Ricardian research into it
very well. I also have Microsoft Office, and I suppose that typing entries
into Word might work. What do you think?



My house is full of old paper records and photographs, partly saved from my
25 years of legal practice and partly family records, being saved in the
hopes of writing a book about my family. I don't particularly want to
accumulate a lot more paper! But I can see that something is going to be
necessary.



I am thinking of a cross indexed system going by person/event and then by
author/source. Vhat do you think? Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated!



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival






Eileen wrote:
>
> Johanne...I sometimes have about 5 or 6 books open around me at strategic
places...I love to read in bed but the cat insists on sitting on the book I
am reading....its so duh?
>
> Seriously we must buy ourselves notebooks....Eileen

Carol responds:

Or good old-fashioned index cards that you can file by author or subject. I
used them for my 600-page doctoral dissertation back in the days of
WordPerfect 4.2. Of course, you need a file box, rather like an
old-fashioned recipe box with index tabs, to keep them sorted.

Carol

It also gives 'friends' amnunition against More and Shakespeare, though, doesn't it Paul? No hunch (why do you think those newspapers feel the urge to keeping misrepresenting the scoliosis as a hunchback?) and no withered arm, which is such a crucial element in More's account of what happened in the Tower on the 13th June 1483.
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual with Richard to give the legends some veracity.
> Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies' ammunition.
> Paul
> On 28 Oct 2012, at 17:01, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:43 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard`s survival…..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" wrote:
> >>
> >> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...
> >> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html
> >>
> >> Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)
> >
> > As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Dear Paul -

I don't know if you are directing your comments toward Gilda or myself, but you are quoting my message, so I'm going to jump in here. I think Gilda's comment was entirely appropriate in the circumstances. It is most important to keep in mind that the initial reports after the discovery of the bones made it clear on the record that the Greyfriars warrior (whoever he may be) suffered from "severe scoliosis," not kyphosis, and they specifically noted that the individual would not have been hunchbacked but would have had one shoulder (his right) higher than the other. It is also true that the evidence from Richard's lifetime indicated that he had one shoulder (the right) higher than the other rather than being hunchbacked. Perhaps there are many people with scoliosis who show no outward signs of that condition. I presume they can only be individuals who have not been severely affected by the condition. But we are considering the bones of the Greyfriars Warrior and Richard in particular, not what may be true of some other sufferers.



I am sure that none of us here want to give "ammunition to the enemy." (Although I don't think of anyone as an "enemy," simply as an ignorant or misguided individual. (smile)) So, could you be more specific as to how these comments might give ammunition to the enemy? One important point in my view, is that the comments were not insulting in tone. They simply pointed out what we believe to be the truth of the matter. So how exactly would that give ammunition to those on the other side? And how would you define the enemy?



Sorry if I come across sounding like a prosecutor! It's from many years of legal training; I have a tendency to sound adversarial, but I am just trying to make a point that I think is valid.



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



-----Original Message-----

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale

Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 8:07 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..



As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual with Richard to give the legends some veracity.

Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies' ammunition.

Paul

On 28 Oct 2012, at 17:01, Johanne Tournier wrote:



> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!

>

>

>

> Johanne

>

>

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Johanne L. Tournier

>

>

>

> Email - jltournier60@...

>

> or jltournier@...

>

>

>

> "With God, all things are possible."

>

> - Jesus of Nazareth

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>

>

> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67

> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 1:43 PM

> To:

> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..

>

>

>

>

>

>

> "EileenB" wrote:

>>

>> According to this newspaper report The Ministry of Justice has already made the decision, last week, that Richard, if it is indeed him, will be buried in Leicester...

>> I see the picture of Richard is captioned "Hunchback".....

>>

>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224256/King-Richard-III-cathedral-burial--skeleton-car-park-500-years-death.html

>>

>> Eileen

>

> Carol responds:

>

> Can someone who subscribes to the Mail please comment on that caption? The researchers have repeatedly emphasized that scoliosis would result in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback, yet the reporters continue to ignore it. (It's worse, far worse, than "Richard of York" or Ibsen as Richard's descendant, two other mistakes that keep recurring.)

>

> As some of you know, I've already written detailed responses to CBS and to Simon Jenkins regarding his "History as Fantasy" article, so I feel as if it's someone else's turn to "have a go," as the British say.

>

> Carol

>

> Carol

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>



Richard Liveth Yet!











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



Yahoo! Groups Links



http://groups.yahoo.com/group//



Individual Email | Traditional



http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join

(Yahoo! ID required)



[email protected]

[email protected]



[email protected]



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

On 29/10/2012 12:06, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> It is also true that the evidence from Richard's lifetime indicated that he had one shoulder (the right) higher than the other rather than being hunchbacked.

Where does this contemporary evidence originate?

Best wishes
Christine

It's not quite in Richard's lifetime. It's from Rows' Historia, completed within four years of Bosworth. I know Rows makes a lot of wild accusations, but if his description of Richard were mere defamatory invention he would surely have done better than this. My guess is that he was prepared to recount slanders about events he hadn't personally witnessed, but having seen Richard himself the best he could do was to try to make his true appearance - short with a raised right shoulder - sound sinister.

Marie



--- In , Christine Headley <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/10/2012 12:06, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > It is also true that the evidence from Richard's lifetime indicated that he had one shoulder (the right) higher than the other rather than being hunchbacked.
>
> Where does this contemporary evidence originate?
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>

I was under the impression that there was a contemporary account that
described Richard that way. But since I'm not a researcher or
academic, I suppose the best course would be to say nothing.

Gilda


On Oct 29, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with
> scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are
> tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all
> with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only
> helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual
> with Richard to give the legends some veracity.
> Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies'
> ammunition.
> Paul
> On 28 Oct 2012, at 17:01, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
>> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has
>> already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would
>> have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback.
>> Good on yer, Gilda!
>>
>> Johanne

Marie wrote:

//snip//
"... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke of
Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir lordes
and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord
marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford, with
many other gentilmen."
You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army, but
Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the
lords present, not the commanders.//

Well, if one were to treat Edward IV/Henry VI as the Commander-in-Chief(s)
of one army and Warwick as the C-i-C of the other, we're left with three men
aren't we? Gloucester, Clarence and Hastings on one side and Montagu, Exeter
and Oxford on the other. The commanders of the three wings for each side?
Just as thought.
Doug

Not so uncommon in the seasons when there are literally thousands of these mice running around.  They and their excretions become, instead, a constant.  I remember the film of the last outbreaks in the southwest US, and it was appalling in the sheer numbers of deer mice overrunning everything.


Sheffe


>________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:01 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
>>
>
>It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.
>
>And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.
>
>As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.
>
>Katy
>
>
>
>
>

I am pretty sure that I have read of other reports from Richard's lifetime about him having uneven shoulders. Marie mentions the report of Rous, written only about four years after Bosworth. I believe that's close enough in time to be considered contemporary (at least within living memory) and at that point Rous had lost any reason he might have had for flattering Richard or minimizing any deformity.



It is also true that the bones of the Greyfriars Warrior, which has at least 5 attributes which indicate a good chance that they are the bones of Richard III, suffered from severe scoliosis, which the authorities said would have meant one shoulder was higher than the other.



Therefore  the Hunchback thing was only put as a caption for the picture for one reason  it is the traditional, pejorative description of Richard which was created by the Tudor crowd and became lodged in popular mythology as a result.



BTW, if there is any doubt about contemporaneity of the uneven shoulders description, at least it can be said with certainty that there is no description known from Richard's lifetime in which he is described as a hunchback.



I still think you did the right thing. After all, it's a comment page on a website, and not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. <smile>



Take care,



Johanne





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:36 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..





I was under the impression that there was a contemporary account that
described Richard that way. But since I'm not a researcher or
academic, I suppose the best course would be to say nothing.

Gilda

On Oct 29, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

> As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with
> scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are
> tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all
> with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only
> helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual
> with Richard to give the legends some veracity.
> Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies'
> ammunition.
> Paul
> On 28 Oct 2012, at 17:01, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
>> I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has
>> already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would
>> have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback.
>> Good on yer, Gilda!
>>
>> Johanne

mcjohn wrote:

//snip//
Another thing to keep in mind about Bosworth is that Richard's charge took
his troops right past Lord Stanley's formation. Later commentators have
said this was risky to the point of being foolhardy, but to me, that
assessment looks more like 20/20 hindsight than a reasoned opinion; Lord
Stanley was supposed to be on the side of the monarch and only switched
sides when he saw an opportunity. Richard had reason to believe that, if he
charged Henry directly and got into any trouble, Stanley could advance his
troops and get him out of it. It wouldn't have been the first time Richard
gave a former opponent the chance to prove his allegiance, but it was,
unfortunately, the last."
//snip//

I'm probably wrong, but I would have thought that it was Northumberland's
job to act as a "deterrent" if Stanley entered the action?
It's been my understanding that it wasn't so much that Stanley's troops
increased the odds against Richard (which they most certainly did!), as it
was the fact that Stanley was able to attack the royal army on its' flank,
always the weakest point. If so, then it was BOTH the flank attack by
Stanley, coupled with Northumberland's, um, inactivity(?), that defeated
Richard.
Of course, I'm presuming here that there were enough men under
Northumberland's command to, at the least, blunt, if not not halt, any move
made by Stanley. If Stanley launched a flank attack on the royal army, then,
presuming Northumberland had sufficient men, HE could launch a flank attack
on Stanley.
Does that make sense?
Doug

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> One aspect of all this in which I can't go along with Peter Hancock is regarding his claim that Catesby is likely to have been the person who advised Richard on the implications of the precontract because he was a lawyer. The implications of the prior marriage to Eleanor Butler for the validity of Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and the legitimacy of their children were a matter of canon, not common, law . It was a task for a person with a university degree in canon and civil law (all clerics) rather than an ordinary lay lawyer like Catesby.
> Where Catesby might have come in is in advising Richard whether it was necessary to go through a church court in order to have Edward IV's children set aside for purposes of inheritance.

Carol responds:

That makes sense. Possibly, Hancock gives that role to Stillington, but, if so, I haven't gotten that far yet.

Does anyone know whether John Ashdown-Hill discusses the Talbot-Catesby connection, or is this Hancock's own discovery?

Carol

It's possible, but there wasn't usually a "commander-in-chief" who stood back, not at this period. The main commander tended to lead the centre wing. Also, the problem with Vitellius A XVI is that it is not strictly contemporary, dating from the 1490s, and makes gross errors with even more recent events, such as placing Dorset at Stony Stratford instead of Rivers.
I have now checked the notes to Peter Hammond's 'The Battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury' and he gives the source for Richard's commanding the van as The Great Chronicle - another late London chronicle, dating from about 1512. I'm afraid I don't have access to a copy. Also, the London Chronicles seem to build on each other - for instance repeating the error in Vitellius about Stony Stratford.

So the problem is that, although Richard may well have commanded the van at Barnet, we don't have any good early source for it. Even if he did, Kendall's scenario about his brave charge is entirely speculative. Apart from anything else, the fog would have made deliberate battle tactics rather difficult.
Marie


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke of
> Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir lordes
> and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord
> marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford, with
> many other gentilmen."
> You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army, but
> Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the
> lords present, not the commanders.//
>
> Well, if one were to treat Edward IV/Henry VI as the Commander-in-Chief(s)
> of one army and Warwick as the C-i-C of the other, we're left with three men
> aren't we? Gloucester, Clarence and Hastings on one side and Montagu, Exeter
> and Oxford on the other. The commanders of the three wings for each side?
> Just as thought.
> Doug
>

Could deer mice explain the horrific outbreak of the sweating sickness in the city of London in October 1485? And are these deer mice native to the UK?
Marie

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Not so uncommon in the seasons when there are literally thousands of these mice running around.  They and their excretions become, instead, a constant.  I remember the film of the last outbreaks in the southwest US, and it was appalling in the sheer numbers of deer mice overrunning everything.
>
>
> Sheffe
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:01 PM
> >Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
> >>
> >
> >It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.
> >
> >And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.
> >
> >As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.
> >
> >Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Marie -

Just a brief point - doesn't "the van" just refer to the "front" of a line
or column? What Kendall was suggesting was that Richard commanded the "right
wing" of the Yorkist forces, and that may well be different than saying he
was at the "van." If Peter Hammond says "van," perhaps he is intending to
suggest something different than "right wing."



Military experts will know better than I!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival






It's possible, but there wasn't usually a "commander-in-chief" who stood
back, not at this period. The main commander tended to lead the centre wing.
Also, the problem with Vitellius A XVI is that it is not strictly
contemporary, dating from the 1490s, and makes gross errors with even more
recent events, such as placing Dorset at Stony Stratford instead of Rivers.
I have now checked the notes to Peter Hammond's 'The Battles of Barnet and
Tewkesbury' and he gives the source for Richard's commanding the van as The
Great Chronicle - another late London chronicle, dating from about 1512. I'm
afraid I don't have access to a copy. Also, the London Chronicles seem to
build on each other - for instance repeating the error in Vitellius about
Stony Stratford.

So the problem is that, although Richard may well have commanded the van at
Barnet, we don't have any good early source for it. Even if he did,
Kendall's scenario about his brave charge is entirely speculative. Apart
from anything else, the fog would have made deliberate battle tactics rather
difficult.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
<destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke
of
> Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir
lordes
> and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord
> marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford,
with
> many other gentilmen."
> You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army,
but
> Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the
> lords present, not the commanders.//
>
> Well, if one were to treat Edward IV/Henry VI as the Commander-in-Chief(s)

> of one army and Warwick as the C-i-C of the other, we're left with three
men
> aren't we? Gloucester, Clarence and Hastings on one side and Montagu,
Exeter
> and Oxford on the other. The commanders of the three wings for each side?
> Just as thought.
> Doug
>

No, not deer mice, which are New World critters. But some other species of mouse, field or otherwise, or different small, prolific mammal might have served equally well, at the time.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 
Could deer mice explain the horrific outbreak of the sweating sickness in the city of London in October 1485? And are these deer mice native to the UK?
Marie

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Not so uncommon in the seasons when there are literally thousands of these mice running around.  They and their excretions become, instead, a constant.  I remember the film of the last outbreaks in the southwest US, and it was appalling in the sheer numbers of deer mice overrunning everything.
>
>
> Sheffe
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:01 PM
> >Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Apocryphal àor not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
> >>
> >
> >It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.
> >
> >And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.
> >
> >As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.
> >
> >Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Marie wrote:
<snip> Vitellius AXVI, a London Chronicle of the 1490s, lists the names of the lords on either side but gives more than three on each side and doesn't talk about commanders of the various "battles". It is also rather late. Anyway, here it is:-
> "... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke of Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir lordes and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford, with many other gentilmen."
> You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army, but Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the lords present, not the commanders. A political poem written to celebrate the victory singles out Richard for particular praise so he evidently acquitted himself well, but I wonder given his age and that this was his frst battle whether he would have been let lose with commanding the right wing. He did do this at Tewkesbury, but by then he had proved himself.
> Marie

Carol responds:

There's one more possibility, a rear guard, which would make four positions. And if there were only two possibilities for leading the van (Hastings and Edward himself being already accounted for), wouldn't Edward be more likely to assign the van to trusted Richard than to George (also inexperienced and less than loyal)? Just a thought, but I think I understand Kendall's reasoning. And we do know that Richard led the van at Tewkesbury, so it's just possible that he did so at Barnet as well.

Also, didn't each of the four men listed by Vitellius for the Lancastrian side lead or co-lead a wing? Kendall has Oxford leading the van, Montagu the center, Exeter the left, and Warwick in the rear with the reserves. If that's correct, we could have a similar arrangement for York. Vitellius seems to be listing the leading participants on the Yorkist side by rank rather than by position on the field, but on the other side, he puts Warwick and his brother the Marquis of Montague ahead of a duke. The only thing I can gather is that all of them held important positions on the field, even Clarence.

For anyone interested, the battle map Kendall uses is identical with the one on this site: http://www.richardiii.net/barnet.htm. How correct it is, I have no idea.

Carol

Johanne wrote:
>
> > I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!

Paul Trevor Bale responded:
>
> As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual with Richard to give the legends some veracity.
> Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies' ammunition.

Carol comments:

Paul, Gilda was repeating what the archaeologists themselves said, making the all-important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. We do have *some* evidence (and, like you, I hesitate to credit Rous on anything, but perhaps he's right on this) that Richard had a raised shoulder and none whatever that he had a hunchback. That's the important point--both reporters and commenters are taking the evidence of scoliosis in the Leicester skeleton as "proof" that Richard was the hunchback of Tudor legend. That is what Gilda was trying to counter, using the distinction made by the researchers themselves. Far from giving the "enemies" ammunition, she was helping to clarify the situation.

So once again, thank you, Gilda!

Carol

Van is a derivative of Vangard leaders of an army
Anglo French vantguarde avant=fore and garde =guard
It is a mixture of English French and Latin
I believe that it's first use was in the 15th cent
George

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Marie -
>
> Just a brief point - doesn't "the van" just refer to the "front" of a line
> or column? What Kendall was suggesting was that Richard commanded the "right
> wing" of the Yorkist forces, and that may well be different than saying he
> was at the "van." If Peter Hammond says "van," perhaps he is intending to
> suggest something different than "right wing."
>
> Military experts will know better than I!
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:31 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
> It's possible, but there wasn't usually a "commander-in-chief" who stood
> back, not at this period. The main commander tended to lead the centre wing.
> Also, the problem with Vitellius A XVI is that it is not strictly
> contemporary, dating from the 1490s, and makes gross errors with even more
> recent events, such as placing Dorset at Stony Stratford instead of Rivers.
> I have now checked the notes to Peter Hammond's 'The Battles of Barnet and
> Tewkesbury' and he gives the source for Richard's commanding the van as The
> Great Chronicle - another late London chronicle, dating from about 1512. I'm
> afraid I don't have access to a copy. Also, the London Chronicles seem to
> build on each other - for instance repeating the error in Vitellius about
> Stony Stratford.
>
> So the problem is that, although Richard may well have commanded the van at
> Barnet, we don't have any good early source for it. Even if he did,
> Kendall's scenario about his brave charge is entirely speculative. Apart
> from anything else, the fog would have made deliberate battle tactics rather
> difficult.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > "... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke
> of
> > Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir
> lordes
> > and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord
> > marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford,
> with
> > many other gentilmen."
> > You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army,
> but
> > Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the
> > lords present, not the commanders.//
> >
> > Well, if one were to treat Edward IV/Henry VI as the Commander-in-Chief(s)
>
> > of one army and Warwick as the C-i-C of the other, we're left with three
> men
> > aren't we? Gloucester, Clarence and Hastings on one side and Montagu,
> Exeter
> > and Oxford on the other. The commanders of the three wings for each side?
> > Just as thought.
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>

Deer mice are not native to the Uk
Tick, fleas cholera venereal disease yellow fever smallpox influenza etc
We had to wait till Q1 to import new world varieties thanks to the navy and commercial ships
George

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:32 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

> Could deer mice explain the horrific outbreak of the sweating sickness in the city of London in October 1485? And are these deer mice native to the UK?
> Marie
>
> --- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
> >
> > Not so uncommon in the seasons when there are literally thousands of these mice running around. They and their excretions become, instead, a constant. I remember the film of the last outbreaks in the southwest US, and it was appalling in the sheer numbers of deer mice overrunning everything.
> >
> >
> > Sheffe
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2012 2:01 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Apocryphal  or not, I think it bespeaks Lord Stanley's attitude with some degree of truth, if not with precision. And a messenger wouldn't be required, if Hantavirus was the causative agent of The Sweat. It is theorized to have been carried by field mice, and the vector may have been a flea. Soon, the disease may have jumped to person-to-person contact, like most influenza viruses.
> > >>
> > >
> > >It's deer mice, though, Judy, not field mice. Deer mice are found only in the western hemisphere.
> > >
> > >And unlike the black plague, the vector is the mouse itself, not the fleas on them. The deer mouse sheds hanta virus through its urine. Humans are infected through the lungs -- they have to inhale the virus, usually through dust containing dried mouse urine that they stir up by sweeping buildings where the mice have been.
> > >
> > >As you can see, the chain of events required for a hanta virus infection is pretty uncommon.
> > >
> > >Katy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

--- In , Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:
>
> Not so uncommon in the seasons when there are literally thousands of these mice running around.  They and their excretions become, instead, a constant.  I remember the film of the last outbreaks in the southwest US, and it was appalling in the sheer numbers of deer mice overrunning everything.
>
>
> Sheffe


To correct myself, I've been saying that deer mice are only found in the western hemisphere. Since that's rather vague, what I should have said was that they are only found on the continents of North and South America.

Katy

Thank you, George!



And as it seems clear from the subsequent discussion by Carol T. the wings and the van would have been different units, along with the center and the rear guard, each under the command of one person (a Duke, perhaps?). And saying that Richard may have commanded the van (per Peter Hammond) would be different than saying he may have commanded the right wing.



I hope this is helping rather than just muddifying the fuzzification!



Take care,



Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard`s survival





Van is a derivative of Vangard leaders of an army
Anglo French vantguarde avant=fore and garde =guard
It is a mixture of English French and Latin
I believe that it's first use was in the 15th cent
George

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2012, at 11:45 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

> Marie -
>
> Just a brief point - doesn't "the van" just refer to the "front" of a line
> or column? What Kendall was suggesting was that Richard commanded the "right
> wing" of the Yorkist forces, and that may well be different than saying he
> was at the "van." If Peter Hammond says "van," perhaps he is intending to
> suggest something different than "right wing."
>
> Military experts will know better than I!
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:31 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard`s survival
>
> It's possible, but there wasn't usually a "commander-in-chief" who stood
> back, not at this period. The main commander tended to lead the centre wing.
> Also, the problem with Vitellius A XVI is that it is not strictly
> contemporary, dating from the 1490s, and makes gross errors with even more
> recent events, such as placing Dorset at Stony Stratford instead of Rivers.
> I have now checked the notes to Peter Hammond's 'The Battles of Barnet and
> Tewkesbury' and he gives the source for Richard's commanding the van as The
> Great Chronicle - another late London chronicle, dating from about 1512. I'm
> afraid I don't have access to a copy. Also, the London Chronicles seem to
> build on each other - for instance repeating the error in Vitellius about
> Stony Stratford.
>
> So the problem is that, although Richard may well have commanded the van at
> Barnet, we don't have any good early source for it. Even if he did,
> Kendall's scenario about his brave charge is entirely speculative. Apart
> from anything else, the fog would have made deliberate battle tactics rather
> difficult.
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> >
> > //snip//
> > "... was vpon that one side kyng Edward and kyng Henry the vith, the Duke
> of
> > Clarence, the Duke of Glowceter, the lord Hastynges with dyuers othir
> lordes
> > and Gentils. And vpon that other party was therle of Warwyk, the lord
> > marques Montagu, his brother, the Duke of Excetir, therle of Oxinford,
> with
> > many other gentilmen."
> > You'll see the problem - there would have been three wings in each army,
> but
> > Vitellius lists more than three lords on each side, so this is about the
> > lords present, not the commanders.//
> >
> > Well, if one were to treat Edward IV/Henry VI as the Commander-in-Chief(s)
>
> > of one army and Warwick as the C-i-C of the other, we're left with three
> men
> > aren't we? Gloucester, Clarence and Hastings on one side and Montagu,
> Exeter
> > and Oxford on the other. The commanders of the three wings for each side?
> > Just as thought.
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Could deer mice explain the horrific outbreak of the sweating sickness in the city of London in October 1485? And are these deer mice native to the UK?
> Mari



I don't think it's possible to associate deer mice with the sweating sickness.

They are not native to Europe, only to North and South America (and, of course, Central America, since it links the two continents.

They're country mice that prefer open forest or prairies.

Here's an article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peromyscus

Katy

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> Actually in these days, a digital database file would be the way to go - something that would allow for cross-indexing and searching. Is there a software program, do you know, that would allow for that? <snip> I also have Microsoft Office, and I suppose that typing entries
> into Word might work. What do you think?

> My house is full of old paper records and photographs, partly saved from my 25 years of legal practice and partly family records, being saved in the hopes of writing a book about my family. I don't particularly want to accumulate a lot more paper! But I can see that something is going to be necessary.
>
> I am thinking of a cross indexed system going by person/event and then by author/source. Vhat do you think? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Carol responds:

Hi, Johanne. I was half-joking with my remark about index cards. They worked well for me when I was working on my dissertation and using mostly print sources (hand-copying the quotations rather than Xeroxing them saved space and made them easier to organize), but these days when so many sources are online and we've all become slaves to technology (so much so that the friendly letter has become a lost art, replaced by e-mail and texting), you're probably right that cross-indexed digital files are the way to go.

You can actually copy and paste your quotations rather than typing them, making sure, of course, to include the source of the quotation and the page number so that you can find it again and properly credit the source if you use it in a paper. Also, if you're planning to write a paper, be sure to remove all formatting from the quotation after you've copied and pasted it. Otherwise, the .html format will conflict with the format of your document (.doc, .docx, or whatever). (I've discovered many instances of what I hope is accidental plagiarism in my clients' manuscripts through sudden changes in the font or format--not that you or anyone on this list would have that problem.)

I did a quick Google search under "organize digital files" and came up with many sites like this one: http://www.jamierubin.net/2012/05/01/going-paperless-tips-for-organizing-your-digital-file-cabinet/

I've also seen a device advertised on TV that allows you to scan and organize paper files, but I can't remember the name of it. (Does anyone know it?) I'm desperately in need of something of that sort since I can't even throw away grocery receipts or old bills for fear that I might need them someday! And I print documents that I have stored in My Documents for fear that my computer will die and I'll lose them even though I also have them saved on a thumb drive. I think I'm still living in 1990.

I realize that this thread has become somewhat OT, but we're (mostly) talking about Ricardian research here.

BTW, a Kindle will allow you to highlight important passages, but I don't know if there's a way to file them or copy them. You might have to resort to typing them into a Word file, making sure that you quote exactly and include the source of information. If you're planning to publish the paper, you'd need the publication data (city, publisher, and date of publication). If it's only for your own reference, title, author, and page number would be enough, though if it's an older source, such as Gairdner, Markham, or Halsted, you might want to include the date of publication as well.

That's all I can think of. Anyone else have ideas or suggestions for organizing our Ricardian files so we don't have to quote from memory or forget where we read something?

Carol

Hi, Carol (T), Gilda, & Everyone 



Here is a snippet of the first media article I printed from Fox News on Sept. 14, 2012:



Two skeletons were discovered: a female skeleton that was broken apart at the joints was discovered in what is believed to be the Presbytery of the lost Church; the other skeleton, which appears to be an adult male, was found in the church choir and shows signs of trauma to the skull and back before death, which would be consistent with a battle injury, the researchers said. [see images of the Richard III discoveries]



A bladed implement appears to have cleaved part of the rear of the skull, according to a University of Leicester statement.



In addition, a barbed metal arrowhead was lodged between the vertebrae of the male skeleton's upper back, Taylor said, adding that the spinal abnormalities suggest that the individual had severe scoliosis, though was not a hunchback, as he was portrayed by Shakespeare in the play of the king's name.



Even so, the scoliosis seen in the skeleton would've made the man's right shoulder appear visibly higher than the left one. This is consistent with contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance, according to the university statement.



I hope that helps clarify the university's understanding of evidence of Richard's condition during his lifetime and also the nature of the spinal abnormality in the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior.



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:13 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival⬦..





Johanne wrote:
>
> > I just went to the website and see that Gilda Felt (our Gilda!) has already commented that with scoliosis not kyphosis Richard would have had one shoulder raised higher than the other, not hunchback. Good on yer, Gilda!

Paul Trevor Bale responded:
>
> As we know from medical sources, and from those on the list with scoliosis, some people show no signs at all, except when they are tired one shoulder may sag. This is not the same as saying that all with scoliosis have one shoulder higher than the other. This is only helping the reports who want to find something physically unusual with Richard to give the legends some veracity.
> Please be careful what you say so as not to give the 'enemies' ammunition.

Carol comments:

Paul, Gilda was repeating what the archaeologists themselves said, making the all-important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis. We do have *some* evidence (and, like you, I hesitate to credit Rous on anything, but perhaps he's right on this) that Richard had a raised shoulder and none whatever that he had a hunchback. That's the important point--both reporters and commenters are taking the evidence of scoliosis in the Leicester skeleton as "proof" that Richard was the hunchback of Tudor legend. That is what Gilda was trying to counter, using the distinction made by the researchers themselves. Far from giving the "enemies" ammunition, she was helping to clarify the situation.

So once again, thank you, Gilda!

Carol

Fortunately, for my fictional purposes, the virus and its manner of dissemination are purely academic. I got what I needed. BTW, if you ever need portions of Dante's "Inferno" in the original old Italian, I DID come upon that among my notes. One day I'll go through all this and recycle some of the pages....

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: Richard`s survival


 
Thanks very much for this, Judy. I'll see if I can track it down online.
Marie

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Marie and Katy: After rattling through three binders full of notes, I have so far found only a couple of my pages, though I feel there may still remain others, especially as the one article has at least one additional page, which is no longer following. Also, I recall more recent references, just can't find them. Keep in mind, these are like a semi-discarded file, as I had already abandoned the notion of a serious paper in favour of writing fiction, but hoarder that I am, hadn't yet disposed of what I wouldn't use - just kind of stuffed it, higgledy-piggledy, into my already swollen binders:
> >
> > Medical History, 1998, 42; 96-98. Comment: The English Sweating Sickness, 1485-1551: A Viral Pulmonary Disease?Mark Taviner, Guy Thwaites, Vanya Gant.
> >
> > Then there are hand written Post Its, referencing A. Dyer, "The English sweating sickness of 1551: an epidemic anatomized," Medical History, 1997, 41. [no pages cited] and on a subsequent page, my comments about "hanta" and "Henry Brandon, Duke of Suff[olk] not enough stable RNA for def[initive] diag[nosis]?" and "DISCOVER, June 97"
> >
> > Sorry. There are probably a dozen other pieces of paper, but since nothing here is organized, I was lucky to spot this photocopy and the sheet that followed; much of the rest is handwritten and liable to be in any order, at this point.
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks for digging out your notes and sources, Judy. I'll try to look into them and maybe find some other material. I'm an epidemiology wonk. I'm fascinated with how disease and individual illnesses shape history.
>
> Katy
>