Did Henry VI really bleed?

Here's the response I got from someone who has medical experience:
During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the way they are now,
so they still contained all their blood. (The body was still believed to be
a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be mutilated, except in
the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the first days of
decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can seep out through
breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that the vampire myth
came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths of corpses.) In
fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin sprung a leak and
blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had a dog with him and
he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his divorce from Katherine
of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks, it's highly
possible that there could have been seepage of bodily fluids.


Victoria

{Loyaulte Me Lie{

That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite into a
favourite snack as well.

I wonder if the dog threw up?

--- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
wrote:
> Here's the response I got from someone who has medical experience:
> During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the way they
are now,
> so they still contained all their blood. (The body was still
believed to be
> a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be mutilated,
except in
> the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the first days
of
> decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can seep out
through
> breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that the vampire
myth
> came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths of
corpses.) In
> fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin sprung a
leak and
> blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had a dog with
him and
> he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his divorce from
Katherine
> of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks, it's highly
> possible that there could have been seepage of bodily fluids.
>
>
> Victoria
>
> {Loyaulte Me Lie{
>
>
>

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite into a
> favourite snack as well.
>
> I wonder if the dog threw up?
>
> --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> wrote:
> > Here's the response I got from someone who has medical experience:
> > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the way
they
> are now,
> > so they still contained all their blood. (The body was still
> believed to be
> > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be mutilated,
> except in
> > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the first
days
> of
> > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can seep out
> through
> > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that the
vampire
> myth
> > came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths of
> corpses.) In
> > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin sprung a
> leak and
> > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had a dog
with
> him and
> > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his divorce
from
> Katherine
> > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks, it's
highly
> > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily fluids.
> >
> >
> > Victoria

So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming process, not
wounds?

Marie
> >
> > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> >
> >
> >

Will we ever know for sure?

The exhumation of Henry VI stated that his hair was matted with
BLOOD. We aren't dealing with Warkworth here who obviously had a
taste for ghost stories or was possibly one can short of a 6 pack.
However, a further autopsy & analysis of Henry's 'bloody' head
might confirm the situation.

I think suspicion must lie with Edward terminating the Lancastrian
line. That's what MOST people believed. Perhaps, Edward was fed up
with fighting battles & wanted to retire to his love bed?

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite into a
> > favourite snack as well.
> >
> > I wonder if the dog threw up?
> >
> > --- In , hockeygirl1016@a...
> > wrote:
> > > Here's the response I got from someone who has medical
experience:
> > > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the way
> they
> > are now,
> > > so they still contained all their blood. (The body was still
> > believed to be
> > > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be mutilated,
> > except in
> > > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the first
> days
> > of
> > > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can seep out
> > through
> > > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that the
> vampire
> > myth
> > > came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths of
> > corpses.) In
> > > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin sprung a
> > leak and
> > > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had a dog
> with
> > him and
> > > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his divorce
> from
> > Katherine
> > > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks, it's
> highly
> > > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily fluids.
> > >
> > >
> > > Victoria
>
> So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming process, not
> wounds?
>
> Marie
> > >
> > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > >
> > >
> > >

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Will we ever know for sure?
>
> The exhumation of Henry VI stated that his hair was matted with
> BLOOD. We aren't dealing with Warkworth here who obviously had a
> taste for ghost stories or was possibly one can short of a 6 pack.
> However, a further autopsy & analysis of Henry's 'bloody' head
> might confirm the situation.

Yes, it would clear up whether he had a head wound (ie whether
Edward's murderer was careless in his methods), but not whether he
bled on Paul's steps. It does seem from the earlier messages that
nothing would enable a dead body to go on bleeding that long. So it
must have been the 'bleeding' you would get from the embalming
process.
>
> I think suspicion must lie with Edward terminating the Lancastrian
> line. That's what MOST people believed. Perhaps, Edward was fed
up
> with fighting battles & wanted to retire to his love bed?
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "willison2001"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite into
a
> > > favourite snack as well.
> > >
> > > I wonder if the dog threw up?
> > >
> > > --- In ,
hockeygirl1016@a...
> > > wrote:
> > > > Here's the response I got from someone who has medical
> experience:
> > > > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the way
> > they
> > > are now,
> > > > so they still contained all their blood. (The body was still
> > > believed to be
> > > > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be
mutilated,
> > > except in
> > > > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the
first
> > days
> > > of
> > > > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can seep
out
> > > through
> > > > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that the
> > vampire
> > > myth
> > > > came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths of
> > > corpses.) In
> > > > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin
sprung a
> > > leak and
> > > > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had a
dog
> > with
> > > him and
> > > > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his divorce
> > from
> > > Katherine
> > > > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks, it's
> > highly
> > > > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily fluids.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Victoria
> >
> > So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming process, not
> > wounds?
> >
> > Marie
> > > >
> > > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

I'm not sure that anyone cared if Henry VI's executioner was
'careless.' The Yorkists had just bled 100s of Lancastrians at
Tewkesbury and may've continued their blood lust onto Henry. Hitting
people on the head or neck, as Buckingham found out, was fairly
standard practice.

It may be that the 'bleeding' on the steps was from Hockeygirl's
description of the consequences of enbalming - which may've put
everyone off hamburgers for life - but the timing of Henry on the
steps is unknown & may be relevant to a fuller understanding of how
long blood takes to flow after a presumably violent death.

Whether Henry bled on the steps with blood or enbalming seepage
doesn't take us any further forward over the cause of his death. I
plumb for execution: Edward's character, precedence, realpoitick & the
'blood' matted in Henry's hair found when his coffin was opened.

David

l--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > Will we ever know for sure?
> >
> > The exhumation of Henry VI stated that his hair was matted with
> > BLOOD. We aren't dealing with Warkworth here who obviously had a
> > taste for ghost stories or was possibly one can short of a 6 pack.

> > However, a further autopsy & analysis of Henry's 'bloody' head
> > might confirm the situation.
>
> Yes, it would clear up whether he had a head wound (ie whether
> Edward's murderer was careless in his methods), but not whether he
> bled on Paul's steps. It does seem from the earlier messages that
> nothing would enable a dead body to go on bleeding that long. So it
> must have been the 'bleeding' you would get from the embalming
> process.
> >
> > I think suspicion must lie with Edward terminating the Lancastrian
> > line. That's what MOST people believed. Perhaps, Edward was fed
> up
> > with fighting battles & wanted to retire to his love bed?
> >
> > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "willison2001"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite into
> a
> > > > favourite snack as well.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if the dog threw up?
> > > >
> > > > --- In ,
> hockeygirl1016@a...
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Here's the response I got from someone who has medical
> > experience:
> > > > > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the
way
> > > they
> > > > are now,
> > > > > so they still contained all their blood. (The body was
still
> > > > believed to be
> > > > > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be
> mutilated,
> > > > except in
> > > > > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the
> first
> > > days
> > > > of
> > > > > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can seep
> out
> > > > through
> > > > > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that the
> > > vampire
> > > > myth
> > > > > came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths of
> > > > corpses.) In
> > > > > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin
> sprung a
> > > > leak and
> > > > > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had a
> dog
> > > with
> > > > him and
> > > > > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his
divorce
> > > from
> > > > Katherine
> > > > > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks,
it's
> > > highly
> > > > > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily
fluids.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Victoria
> > >
> > > So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming process, not
> > > wounds?
> > >
> > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I'm not sure that anyone cared if Henry VI's executioner was
> 'careless.' The Yorkists had just bled 100s of Lancastrians at
> Tewkesbury and may've continued their blood lust onto Henry.
Hitting
> people on the head or neck, as Buckingham found out, was fairly
> standard practice.
>
> It may be that the 'bleeding' on the steps was from Hockeygirl's
> description of the consequences of enbalming - which may've put
> everyone off hamburgers for life - but the timing of Henry on the
> steps is unknown & may be relevant to a fuller understanding of how
> long blood takes to flow after a presumably violent death.
>
> Whether Henry bled on the steps with blood or enbalming seepage
> doesn't take us any further forward over the cause of his death. I
> plumb for execution: Edward's character, precedence, realpoitick &
the
> 'blood' matted in Henry's hair found when his coffin was opened.
>
> David

At least we are agreed the death was probably unnatural. In that
sense it doesn't really matter how it was done. But the bl;eeding
thing does seem to be important to some listers - perhaps because it
provides something approaching proof that he was killed. I should
like clarification on how long a body can bleed. Not very long, I
suspect, as once the heart stops beating there's nothing to force
blood from the body so the bleeding seen when Henry was on display
would have to be something else.
I can't agree that Edward didn't need to worry about letting injuries
show. There was a huge difference between knocking an anointed king
on the head as he knelt at his prayers and killing men in the heat of
battle, or indeed executing the Lancastrian leaders at Tewkesbury
following trial. Edward II and Richard II were both killed by means
which left no marks visible to the public. Edward never admitted
responsibility for Henry's death, and never tried to pass it off as
an execution. Which is why I used the term 'judicial murder'. The
yorkist Arrivall chronicle gives what was probably the official cause
of death: 'pure displeasure and melancholy'. Now, Edward was hardly
going to give a cause of death like that and then have Henry's head
bashed in and put him out on display without so much as a hairwash!

I note the word 'autopsy' has been used with regard to the
examination of Henry's remains that took place earlier. I don't have
the papers to hand, but I don't believe from memory that there was an
autopsy as such or that the stuff in the hair which looked like dried
blood was ever tested. Perhaps someone can enlighten me, as I can't
get at my files at pres.

Marie


>
> l--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "willison2001"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > Will we ever know for sure?
> > >
> > > The exhumation of Henry VI stated that his hair was matted with
> > > BLOOD. We aren't dealing with Warkworth here who obviously had
a
> > > taste for ghost stories or was possibly one can short of a 6
pack.
>
> > > However, a further autopsy & analysis of Henry's 'bloody' head
> > > might confirm the situation.
> >
> > Yes, it would clear up whether he had a head wound (ie whether
> > Edward's murderer was careless in his methods), but not whether
he
> > bled on Paul's steps. It does seem from the earlier messages that
> > nothing would enable a dead body to go on bleeding that long. So
it
> > must have been the 'bleeding' you would get from the embalming
> > process.
> > >
> > > I think suspicion must lie with Edward terminating the
Lancastrian
> > > line. That's what MOST people believed. Perhaps, Edward was
fed
> > up
> > > with fighting battles & wanted to retire to his love bed?
> > >
> > > --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > --- In , "willison2001"
> > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite
into
> > a
> > > > > favourite snack as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if the dog threw up?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In ,
> > hockeygirl1016@a...
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Here's the response I got from someone who has medical
> > > experience:
> > > > > > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed the
> way
> > > > they
> > > > > are now,
> > > > > > so they still contained all their blood. (The body was
> still
> > > > > believed to be
> > > > > > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be
> > mutilated,
> > > > > except in
> > > > > > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the
> > first
> > > > days
> > > > > of
> > > > > > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can
seep
> > out
> > > > > through
> > > > > > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that
the
> > > > vampire
> > > > > myth
> > > > > > came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths
of
> > > > > corpses.) In
> > > > > > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin
> > sprung a
> > > > > leak and
> > > > > > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers had
a
> > dog
> > > > with
> > > > > him and
> > > > > > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his
> divorce
> > > > from
> > > > > Katherine
> > > > > > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks,
> it's
> > > > highly
> > > > > > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily
> fluids.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Victoria
> > > >
> > > > So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming process,
not
> > > > wounds?
> > > >
> > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

Hi,
Edward did give a sanitised version of how Henry died, but if
indeed Henry's head was bleeding this was a bit of a give away as
to cause of death. This may've been clumsy, but it also may be
that Edward, as victor at Tewkesbury, took a 'like it or lump it'
view.

Edward showed no sensitivity over Clarence, who was a treacherous
turncoat, but could've been imprisoned, not drowned. They were
brothers after all!

Edward also showed disregard to the feelings of women who he seduced
and dumped.

Remember Edward, like Clarence & Richard, had to emotionally deal with
the brutal way his father & younger brother were treated: decapitated
& impaled on spikes, when Edward was only a teenie himself. This &
battles may've brutalised him & Clarence & Richard!!!

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "willison2001"
> <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > I'm not sure that anyone cared if Henry VI's executioner was
> > 'careless.' The Yorkists had just bled 100s of Lancastrians at
> > Tewkesbury and may've continued their blood lust onto Henry.
> Hitting
> > people on the head or neck, as Buckingham found out, was fairly
> > standard practice.
> >
> > It may be that the 'bleeding' on the steps was from Hockeygirl's
> > description of the consequences of enbalming - which may've put
> > everyone off hamburgers for life - but the timing of Henry on the
> > steps is unknown & may be relevant to a fuller understanding of
how
> > long blood takes to flow after a presumably violent death.
> >
> > Whether Henry bled on the steps with blood or enbalming seepage
> > doesn't take us any further forward over the cause of his death.
I
> > plumb for execution: Edward's character, precedence, realpoitick &
> the
> > 'blood' matted in Henry's hair found when his coffin was opened.
> >
> > David
>
> At least we are agreed the death was probably unnatural. In that
> sense it doesn't really matter how it was done. But the bl;eeding
> thing does seem to be important to some listers - perhaps because it
> provides something approaching proof that he was killed. I should
> like clarification on how long a body can bleed. Not very long, I
> suspect, as once the heart stops beating there's nothing to force
> blood from the body so the bleeding seen when Henry was on display
> would have to be something else.
> I can't agree that Edward didn't need to worry about letting
injuries
> show. There was a huge difference between knocking an anointed king
> on the head as he knelt at his prayers and killing men in the heat
of
> battle, or indeed executing the Lancastrian leaders at Tewkesbury
> following trial. Edward II and Richard II were both killed by means
> which left no marks visible to the public. Edward never admitted
> responsibility for Henry's death, and never tried to pass it off as
> an execution. Which is why I used the term 'judicial murder'. The
> yorkist Arrivall chronicle gives what was probably the official
cause
> of death: 'pure displeasure and melancholy'. Now, Edward was hardly
> going to give a cause of death like that and then have Henry's head
> bashed in and put him out on display without so much as a hairwash!
>
> I note the word 'autopsy' has been used with regard to the
> examination of Henry's remains that took place earlier. I don't have
> the papers to hand, but I don't believe from memory that there was
an
> autopsy as such or that the stuff in the hair which looked like
dried
> blood was ever tested. Perhaps someone can enlighten me, as I can't
> get at my files at pres.
>
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > l--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > --- In , "willison2001"
> > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > Will we ever know for sure?
> > > >
> > > > The exhumation of Henry VI stated that his hair was matted
with
> > > > BLOOD. We aren't dealing with Warkworth here who obviously
had
> a
> > > > taste for ghost stories or was possibly one can short of a 6
> pack.
> >
> > > > However, a further autopsy & analysis of Henry's 'bloody' head
> > > > might confirm the situation.
> > >
> > > Yes, it would clear up whether he had a head wound (ie whether
> > > Edward's murderer was careless in his methods), but not whether
> he
> > > bled on Paul's steps. It does seem from the earlier messages
that
> > > nothing would enable a dead body to go on bleeding that long. So
> it
> > > must have been the 'bleeding' you would get from the embalming
> > > process.
> > > >
> > > > I think suspicion must lie with Edward terminating the
> Lancastrian
> > > > line. That's what MOST people believed. Perhaps, Edward was
> fed
> > > up
> > > > with fighting battles & wanted to retire to his love bed?
> > > >
> > > > --- In ,
"mariewalsh2003"
> > > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > > --- In ,
"willison2001"
> > > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > That's a charming little story. I was just about to bite
> into
> > > a
> > > > > > favourite snack as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if the dog threw up?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In ,
> > > hockeygirl1016@a...
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Here's the response I got from someone who has medical
> > > > experience:
> > > > > > > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed
the
> > way
> > > > > they
> > > > > > are now,
> > > > > > > so they still contained all their blood. (The body was
> > still
> > > > > > believed to be
> > > > > > > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be
> > > mutilated,
> > > > > > except in
> > > > > > > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during the
> > > first
> > > > > days
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can
> seep
> > > out
> > > > > > through
> > > > > > > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating that
> the
> > > > > vampire
> > > > > > myth
> > > > > > > came from people noticing blood dripping from the mouths
> of
> > > > > > corpses.) In
> > > > > > > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead coffin
> > > sprung a
> > > > > > leak and
> > > > > > > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers
had
> a
> > > dog
> > > > > with
> > > > > > him and
> > > > > > > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his
> > divorce
> > > > > from
> > > > > > Katherine
> > > > > > > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some leaks,
> > it's
> > > > > highly
> > > > > > > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily
> > fluids.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Victoria
> > > > >
> > > > > So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming process,
> not
> > > > > wounds?
> > > > >
> > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
> Edward did give a sanitised version of how Henry died, but if
> indeed Henry's head was bleeding this was a bit of a give away as
> to cause of death. This may've been clumsy, but it also may be
> that Edward, as victor at Tewkesbury, took a 'like it or lump it'
> view.
>
> Edward showed no sensitivity over Clarence, who was a treacherous
> turncoat, but could've been imprisoned, not drowned. They were
> brothers after all!
>
> Edward also showed disregard to the feelings of women who he
seduced
> and dumped.
>
> Remember Edward, like Clarence & Richard, had to emotionally deal
with
> the brutal way his father & younger brother were treated:
decapitated
> & impaled on spikes, when Edward was only a teenie himself. This &
> battles may've brutalised him & Clarence & Richard!!!
>

Whatever people thought of Henry as a King, and of his queen, they
revered him greatly as a holy man. It wasn't long before a cult of
martyrdom had grown up round him and pilgrims were flocking to his
tomb looking for cures. There is still a move going to get him
canonised.Admittedly, Edward can't have anticipated how far all this
would go, but I do think he would have been wise not to make his hand
in Henry's death too obvious. And the story he gave out supports my
view. The bleeding cannot have been natural, I think that has been
dealt with. The blood-like substance matted in the hair may have been
blood from bleeding at the time of death, or the red body fluids that
leaked giving the appearance of bleeding during exposure. Without
proper tests we cannot know.

As for this nifty 'brutalisation' argument, I admit I find this
irritating. One could as easily argue that tragedy in life would
deepen a person's sensibilities and make it easier for them to feel
for others. Certainly, in Richard's case, the events that are
supposed to have brutalised him are things he never saw. He was not
brutalised in the sense a modern child might be growing up in a
violent atmosphere or watching video nasties all day. One can no more
assume that the events of his childhood would have brutalised him
than that the child of a soldier killed on the front in today's world
would be bound to grow up bad.
Experience of battle is perhaps a different thing, but again we are
talking of isolated events during youth, a couple of one-day
engagements. Men were far more 'brutalised' in the Somme without
inevitably exhibiting psychopathic behaviour back home (traumatised
behaviour, perhaps). We wouldn't dream of shrugging off as inevitably
brutalised and evil everyone in our own day who has suffered the
murder of family members or served as a soldier in a brief conflict.
I can't remember who first came up with this one (I know it's not
your own idea), intended as a 'clever' blanket shortcut in justifying
a certain view of Richard in any given situation without the boring
necessity of analysing the evidence. Edward was a cad with women. But
not careless of public opinion. He was an incredible physical
specimen, had certainly once been idolized by the Londoners, and I
doubt he would beliberately risk all that just as he was re-
establishing himself. Henry had to go, but I doubt if Edward planned
for him to be 'bleeding' all over the shop.

Marie



> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "willison2001"
> > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure that anyone cared if Henry VI's executioner was
> > > 'careless.' The Yorkists had just bled 100s of Lancastrians at
> > > Tewkesbury and may've continued their blood lust onto Henry.
> > Hitting
> > > people on the head or neck, as Buckingham found out, was fairly
> > > standard practice.
> > >
> > > It may be that the 'bleeding' on the steps was from
Hockeygirl's
> > > description of the consequences of enbalming - which may've put
> > > everyone off hamburgers for life - but the timing of Henry on
the
> > > steps is unknown & may be relevant to a fuller understanding of
> how
> > > long blood takes to flow after a presumably violent death.
> > >
> > > Whether Henry bled on the steps with blood or enbalming seepage
> > > doesn't take us any further forward over the cause of his
death.
> I
> > > plumb for execution: Edward's character, precedence,
realpoitick &
> > the
> > > 'blood' matted in Henry's hair found when his coffin was opened.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > At least we are agreed the death was probably unnatural. In that
> > sense it doesn't really matter how it was done. But the bl;eeding
> > thing does seem to be important to some listers - perhaps because
it
> > provides something approaching proof that he was killed. I should
> > like clarification on how long a body can bleed. Not very long, I
> > suspect, as once the heart stops beating there's nothing to force
> > blood from the body so the bleeding seen when Henry was on
display
> > would have to be something else.
> > I can't agree that Edward didn't need to worry about letting
> injuries
> > show. There was a huge difference between knocking an anointed
king
> > on the head as he knelt at his prayers and killing men in the
heat
> of
> > battle, or indeed executing the Lancastrian leaders at Tewkesbury
> > following trial. Edward II and Richard II were both killed by
means
> > which left no marks visible to the public. Edward never admitted
> > responsibility for Henry's death, and never tried to pass it off
as
> > an execution. Which is why I used the term 'judicial murder'. The
> > yorkist Arrivall chronicle gives what was probably the official
> cause
> > of death: 'pure displeasure and melancholy'. Now, Edward was
hardly
> > going to give a cause of death like that and then have Henry's
head
> > bashed in and put him out on display without so much as a
hairwash!
> >
> > I note the word 'autopsy' has been used with regard to the
> > examination of Henry's remains that took place earlier. I don't
have
> > the papers to hand, but I don't believe from memory that there
was
> an
> > autopsy as such or that the stuff in the hair which looked like
> dried
> > blood was ever tested. Perhaps someone can enlighten me, as I
can't
> > get at my files at pres.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > >
> > > l--- In
, "mariewalsh2003"
> > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > --- In , "willison2001"
> > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Will we ever know for sure?
> > > > >
> > > > > The exhumation of Henry VI stated that his hair was matted
> with
> > > > > BLOOD. We aren't dealing with Warkworth here who obviously
> had
> > a
> > > > > taste for ghost stories or was possibly one can short of a
6
> > pack.
> > >
> > > > > However, a further autopsy & analysis of Henry's 'bloody'
head
> > > > > might confirm the situation.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it would clear up whether he had a head wound (ie
whether
> > > > Edward's murderer was careless in his methods), but not
whether
> > he
> > > > bled on Paul's steps. It does seem from the earlier messages
> that
> > > > nothing would enable a dead body to go on bleeding that long.
So
> > it
> > > > must have been the 'bleeding' you would get from the
embalming
> > > > process.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think suspicion must lie with Edward terminating the
> > Lancastrian
> > > > > line. That's what MOST people believed. Perhaps, Edward
was
> > fed
> > > > up
> > > > > with fighting battles & wanted to retire to his love bed?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In ,
> "mariewalsh2003"
> > > > > <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > > > > --- In ,
> "willison2001"
> > > > > > <willison2001@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > That's a charming little story. I was just about to
bite
> > into
> > > > a
> > > > > > > favourite snack as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder if the dog threw up?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > > hockeygirl1016@a...
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Here's the response I got from someone who has
medical
> > > > > experience:
> > > > > > > > During medieval times bodies usually weren't embalmed
> the
> > > way
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > are now,
> > > > > > > > so they still contained all their blood. (The body
was
> > > still
> > > > > > > believed to be
> > > > > > > > a sort of literal temple of spirit and was not to be
> > > > mutilated,
> > > > > > > except in
> > > > > > > > the case of those executed or saints.) Often during
the
> > > > first
> > > > > > days
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > decomposition the body swells and blood pools and can
> > seep
> > > > out
> > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > breaks in the skin and orifices. (It's speculating
that
> > the
> > > > > > vampire
> > > > > > > myth
> > > > > > > > came from people noticing blood dripping from the
mouths
> > of
> > > > > > > corpses.) In
> > > > > > > > fact, during Henry VIII's funeral his inner lead
coffin
> > > > sprung a
> > > > > > > leak and
> > > > > > > > blood dripped onto the floor. The funeral organizers
> had
> > a
> > > > dog
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > him and
> > > > > > > > he licked it, resulting in a prophecy made during his
> > > divorce
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > Katherine
> > > > > > > > of Aragon coming true. So if his coffin had some
leaks,
> > > it's
> > > > > > highly
> > > > > > > > possible that there could have been seepage of bodily
> > > fluids.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Victoria
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the bleeding would have to do with the enbalming
process,
> > not
> > > > > > wounds?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > {Loyaulte Me Lie{
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >

I'm not sure where Richard was on a particular day when Henry VI
met his end. Perhaps, his book keepers were accurate, but I've
certainly known accounting errors of all sorts; I've even done some
accounting myself.


> Whatever people thought of Henry as a King, and of his queen, they
> revered him greatly as a holy man. It wasn't long before a cult of
> martyrdom had grown up round him and pilgrims were flocking to his
> tomb looking for cures. There is still a move going to get him
> canonised.Admittedly, Edward can't have anticipated how far all this
> would go,

Well, of course how far did it ever go? It's impossible to say
statisically how many thought Henry a saint at the time, he certainly
wasn't suitable as a King and there are strong suggestions that he
suffered from schizophrenia. No-one is exactly rushing to canonize
him. 1471-2003 is already a long time to wait! Indeed, some of the
saints seem to have been elected on the most tenuous grounds.
Martyred may mean they were trapped, like Henry & More!!!

but I do think he would have been wise not to make his
hand > in Henry's death too obvious. And the story he gave out
supports my > view.

You're right that Edward did try a bit of propaganda. Henry died of
'pure displeasure & melancholy.' I know people suffer from this, but
not usually die from it. Unless, Henry committed suicide, a most
unsaintly thing to do. It sounds fabricated.

The bleeding cannot have been natural, I think that has been
> dealt with. The blood-like substance matted in the hair may have
been > blood from bleeding at the time of death, or the red body
fluids that> leaked giving the appearance of bleeding during exposure.
Without> proper tests we cannot know.

I'd like to see it tested. But the exhumators of Henry last time were
sure it was blood. It may be that the executioner & people
responsible for laying Henry in his coffin simply were not aware of
Edward's propaganda & were careless. I doubt if Edward himself
checked out the situation.
>
> As for this nifty 'brutalisation' argument, I admit I find this
> irritating. One could as easily argue that tragedy in life would
> deepen a person's sensibilities and make it easier for them to feel
> for others. Certainly, in Richard's case, the events that are
> supposed to have brutalised him are things he never saw. He was not
> brutalised in the sense a modern child might be growing up in a
> violent atmosphere or watching video nasties all day.

It could be scary stuff to be told that your beloved Father and
teenage brother were captured, decapitated and their head pushed onto
spikes which were on Micklebar, a gate tower overlooking York. Deep
anxiety reactions could follow, lashing out quickly in self defence,
as Richard did in 1483.

One can no more> assume that the events of his childhood would have
brutalised him > than that the child of a soldier killed on the front
in today's world > would be bound to grow up bad.

I never said he was bad. He may've been psychologically damaged, but
deserves some pity for that.

> Experience of battle is perhaps a different thing, but again we are
> talking of isolated events during youth, a couple of one-day
> engagements. Men were far more 'brutalised' in the Somme without
> inevitably exhibiting psychopathic behaviour back home (traumatised
> behaviour, perhaps). We wouldn't dream of shrugging off as
inevitably> brutalised and evil everyone in our own day who has
suffered the> murder of family members or served as a soldier in a
brief conflict.

I agree that outcomes of nasty experiences do vary and perhaps
'brutalization' is too strong a word.

> I can't remember who first came up with this one (I know it's not
> your own idea), intended as a 'clever' blanket shortcut in
justifying > a certain view of Richard in any given situation without
the boring necessity of analysing the evidence.

It may well have been thought of by someone else, but I'd not actually
read that. It just occurred to me. I'm not not suggesting that
Richard was 'evil' anymore than any predatory species is. The current
debate about pre-emptive strikes and self defence is instructive. If
one does attack someone based upon 'some evidence' that they may do us
some harm, is that necessarily bad? Richard struck at Dorset who had
been angling for supreme power, over Edward V & Richard, and can we
blame him? I don't!

Edward was a cad with women. But> not careless of public opinion. He
was an incredible physical > specimen, had certainly once been
idolized by the Londoners, and I > doubt he would beliberately risk
all that just as he was re-> establishing himself. Henry had to go,
but I doubt if Edward planned> for him to be 'bleeding' all over the
shop.
>
> Marie

I doubt if many minded about Edward's love life and some may well
have enjoyed the idea. That's if the great unwashed even knew about
it. The point I was making was that Edward was sloppy about his
reputation. Richard made in clear that he was less than impressed with
the womanising, over-eating etc., Some would say that Richard was a
bit of a prig. But there is something animalistic about Edward. Did
he have to KILL Henry VI, a focal point of rebellion, but in prison,
or Clarence, a nuisance, but in prison? Did he have to treat women
like sex puppets?

David

--- In , "willison2001"
<willison2001@y...> wrote:
> I'm not sure where Richard was on a particular day when Henry VI
> met his end. Perhaps, his book keepers were accurate, but I've
> certainly known accounting errors of all sorts; I've even done some
> accounting myself.
>
Me too (very last word!)
>
> > Whatever people thought of Henry as a King, and of his queen,
they
> > revered him greatly as a holy man. It wasn't long before a cult
of
> > martyrdom had grown up round him and pilgrims were flocking to
his
> > tomb looking for cures. There is still a move going to get him
> > canonised.Admittedly, Edward can't have anticipated how far all
this
> > would go,
>
> Well, of course how far did it ever go? It's impossible to say
> statisically how many thought Henry a saint at the time, he
certainly
> wasn't suitable as a King and there are strong suggestions that he
> suffered from schizophrenia. No-one is exactly rushing to canonize
> him. 1471-2003 is already a long time to wait! Indeed, some of
the
> saints seem to have been elected on the most tenuous grounds.
> Martyred may mean they were trapped, like Henry & More!!!
>
> but I do think he would have been wise not to make his
> hand > in Henry's death too obvious. And the story he gave out
> supports my > view.
>
> You're right that Edward did try a bit of propaganda. Henry died
of
> 'pure displeasure & melancholy.' I know people suffer from this,
but
> not usually die from it. Unless, Henry committed suicide, a most
> unsaintly thing to do. It sounds fabricated.
>
> The bleeding cannot have been natural, I think that has been
> > dealt with. The blood-like substance matted in the hair may have
> been > blood from bleeding at the time of death, or the red body
> fluids that> leaked giving the appearance of bleeding during
exposure.
> Without> proper tests we cannot know.
>
> I'd like to see it tested. But the exhumators of Henry last time
were
> sure it was blood. It may be that the executioner & people
> responsible for laying Henry in his coffin simply were not aware of
> Edward's propaganda & were careless. I doubt if Edward himself
> checked out the situation.
> >
> > As for this nifty 'brutalisation' argument, I admit I find this
> > irritating. One could as easily argue that tragedy in life would
> > deepen a person's sensibilities and make it easier for them to
feel
> > for others. Certainly, in Richard's case, the events that are
> > supposed to have brutalised him are things he never saw. He was
not
> > brutalised in the sense a modern child might be growing up in a
> > violent atmosphere or watching video nasties all day.
>
> It could be scary stuff to be told that your beloved Father and
> teenage brother were captured, decapitated and their head pushed
onto
> spikes which were on Micklebar, a gate tower overlooking York.
Deep
> anxiety reactions could follow, lashing out quickly in self
defence,
> as Richard did in 1483.
>
> One can no more> assume that the events of his childhood would
have
> brutalised him > than that the child of a soldier killed on the
front
> in today's world > would be bound to grow up bad.
>
> I never said he was bad. He may've been psychologically damaged,
but
> deserves some pity for that.
>
> > Experience of battle is perhaps a different thing, but again we
are
> > talking of isolated events during youth, a couple of one-day
> > engagements. Men were far more 'brutalised' in the Somme without
> > inevitably exhibiting psychopathic behaviour back home
(traumatised
> > behaviour, perhaps). We wouldn't dream of shrugging off as
> inevitably> brutalised and evil everyone in our own day who has
> suffered the> murder of family members or served as a soldier in a
> brief conflict.
>
> I agree that outcomes of nasty experiences do vary and perhaps
> 'brutalization' is too strong a word.
>
> > I can't remember who first came up with this one (I know it's not
> > your own idea), intended as a 'clever' blanket shortcut in
> justifying > a certain view of Richard in any given situation
without
> the boring necessity of analysing the evidence.
>
> It may well have been thought of by someone else, but I'd not
actually
> read that. It just occurred to me. I'm not not suggesting that
> Richard was 'evil' anymore than any predatory species is. The
current
> debate about pre-emptive strikes and self defence is instructive.
If
> one does attack someone based upon 'some evidence' that they may do
us
> some harm, is that necessarily bad? Richard struck at Dorset who
had
> been angling for supreme power, over Edward V & Richard, and can we
> blame him? I don't!
>
> Edward was a cad with women. But> not careless of public opinion.
He
> was an incredible physical > specimen, had certainly once been
> idolized by the Londoners, and I > doubt he would beliberately risk
> all that just as he was re-> establishing himself. Henry had to go,
> but I doubt if Edward planned> for him to be 'bleeding' all over
the
> shop.
> >
> > Marie
>
> I doubt if many minded about Edward's love life and some may well
> have enjoyed the idea. That's if the great unwashed even knew
about
> it. The point I was making was that Edward was sloppy about his
> reputation. Richard made in clear that he was less than impressed
with
> the womanising, over-eating etc., Some would say that Richard was
a
> bit of a prig. But there is something animalistic about Edward.
Did
> he have to KILL Henry VI, a focal point of rebellion, but in
prison,
> or Clarence, a nuisance, but in prison? Did he have to treat women
> like sex puppets?
>
> David