Re: [Richard III Society Forum] available research pamplets.. a tho

Carol Darling wrote:

"Since in a month or so, tremendous public events may see a very revitalized
Visitor Center for Richard III and his times, available to the public, I
was thinking that the wonderfully detailed and scholarly comments from
several Forum members need to be printed in hundreds of copies and made into
pamphlets, possibly according to subject, and with the approval of many
higher ups in the system, placed in the visitor center, for people to have.
There is so much detailed info being shared on this Forum, and I don't know
what will become of this research after we discuss it among ourselves. Is
this all fresh new thinking? Has it been read by all, previously? The
comments on the Hastings events in particular, seem to open so many doors
of thought. So, Id like opinions on my idea to present this very scholarly
material at Richardian outlets, in the future."

I presume that members of the RIII Society already know about this forum and
that it's listed with the Society as, well, a "source" or "further reading"?
That should get our discussions, conclusions and any supporting evidence to
that circle of interested people, but I'm at loss as to how to make this
forum's contents available to an even wider audience.
Would be nice to see a reference to us in someone's Doctoral thesis,
wouldn't it!
Doug

<snip?
>I presume that members of the RIII Society already know about this forum and
>that it's listed with the Society as, well, a "source" or "further reading"?
>That should get our discussions, conclusions and any supporting evidence to
>that circle of interested people, but I'm at loss as to how to make this
>forum's contents available to an even wider audience.
>Would be nice to see a reference to us in someone's Doctoral thesis,
>wouldn't it!

Hi Doug

The Forum is run by the R3 Society as a yahoo group - Neil our
moderator is a Society member. There is a link on the top bar of the
Society's website, I think a lot of our members have joined that way,
I certainly did.

It is a shame that the Forum has the reputation as being for slightly
dippy devotees & not so serious discussion - how wrong can they be!
Despite my best endeavours over the years I think I've only persuaded
one person to join.

I do wish there was some way of making sense of the posts - ie printing
off in order so as to make a sort of proper discussion but I think it
would be a mammoth task:(((

cheers

Jac

What a shame that this forum doesn't have a better reputation. In the two weeks I've been here, I've learned more about Richard and his times than in the last 20 years. I've already begun studying medieval horses due to one post from a member! Maire.

--- In , jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:
>
>
> <snip?
> >I presume that members of the RIII Society already know about this forum and
> >that it's listed with the Society as, well, a "source" or "further reading"?
> >That should get our discussions, conclusions and any supporting evidence to
> >that circle of interested people, but I'm at loss as to how to make this
> >forum's contents available to an even wider audience.
> >Would be nice to see a reference to us in someone's Doctoral thesis,
> >wouldn't it!
>
> Hi Doug
>
> The Forum is run by the R3 Society as a yahoo group - Neil our
> moderator is a Society member. There is a link on the top bar of the
> Society's website, I think a lot of our members have joined that way,
> I certainly did.
>
> It is a shame that the Forum has the reputation as being for slightly
> dippy devotees & not so serious discussion - how wrong can they be!
> Despite my best endeavours over the years I think I've only persuaded
> one person to join.
>
> I do wish there was some way of making sense of the posts - ie printing
> off in order so as to make a sort of proper discussion but I think it
> would be a mammoth task:(((
>
> cheers
>
> Jac
>

Douglas Eugene Stamatewrote:
>
> I presume that members of the RIII Society already know about this forum and that it's listed with the Society as, well, a "source" or "further reading"? That should get our discussions, conclusions and any supporting evidence to that circle of interested people, but I'm at loss as to how to make this forum's contents available to an even wider audience. Would be nice to see a reference to us in someone's Doctoral thesis, wouldn't it!

Carol responds:

I've Googled R3-related topics only to be linked to my own posts! Anyone researching, say, Buckingham and Catesby, could end up here and, having found us, search the posts. They can also join the forum if they so desire--no R3 Society membership necessary.

Carol

Hi Carol...could you please let me know what book you were referring to when you posted 'Eileen might like it'....Thank you Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Douglas Eugene Stamatewrote:
> >
> > I presume that members of the RIII Society already know about this forum and that it's listed with the Society as, well, a "source" or "further reading"? That should get our discussions, conclusions and any supporting evidence to that circle of interested people, but I'm at loss as to how to make this forum's contents available to an even wider audience. Would be nice to see a reference to us in someone's Doctoral thesis, wouldn't it!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I've Googled R3-related topics only to be linked to my own posts! Anyone researching, say, Buckingham and Catesby, could end up here and, having found us, search the posts. They can also join the forum if they so desire--no R3 Society membership necessary.
>
> Carol
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> Hi Carol...could you please let me know what book you were referring to when you posted 'Eileen might like it'....Thank you Eileen

Carol responds:

Peter Hancock's "Richard III and the Murder in the Tower," which theorizes that Catesby (rather than Stillington) revealed the Eleanor Talbot/Edward IV marriage to Richard and at the same time revealed that Hastings knew about it and was concealing it from Richard, causing Richard's uncharacteristic burst of rage at Hastings's betrayal. I thought you might like it because you seem to dislike "the Cat" (as Hancock calls him) as much as Hancock does. I had named the book earlier in the thread, but I know that posts on this forum tend to get lost.

Carol

Thanks Carol...I have thought about purchasing this book before...I will now for sure. I would certainly take a lot of convincing that Catesby rather than Stillington revealed the pre-contract. I recall that Stillington was arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth so there must have been a good reason for that. However I would be interested to read Mr Hancock's theory....Many thanks Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carol...could you please let me know what book you were referring to when you posted 'Eileen might like it'....Thank you Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Peter Hancock's "Richard III and the Murder in the Tower," which theorizes that Catesby (rather than Stillington) revealed the Eleanor Talbot/Edward IV marriage to Richard and at the same time revealed that Hastings knew about it and was concealing it from Richard, causing Richard's uncharacteristic burst of rage at Hastings's betrayal. I thought you might like it because you seem to dislike "the Cat" (as Hancock calls him) as much as Hancock does. I had named the book earlier in the thread, but I know that posts on this forum tend to get lost.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Carol...I have thought about purchasing this book before...I will now for sure. I would certainly take a lot of convincing that Catesby rather than Stillington revealed the pre-contract. I recall that Stillington was arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth so there must have been a good reason for that. However I would be interested to read Mr Hancock's theory....Many thanks Eileen

Carol responds:

You're welcome. I agree that he's wrong about the revelation being from Catesby rather than Stillington, and I'm not persuaded that Richard killed Hastings because he knew about the precontract and remained silent, either. Still, the connections he points out between Catesby and others are interesting (if only his writing style didn't lag on occasion!). I'll be interested in what you think when you've finished the book.

Carol

Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....

Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Carol...I have thought about purchasing this book before...I will now for sure. I would certainly take a lot of convincing that Catesby rather than Stillington revealed the pre-contract. I recall that Stillington was arrested in the aftermath of Bosworth so there must have been a good reason for that. However I would be interested to read Mr Hancock's theory....Many thanks Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. I agree that he's wrong about the revelation being from Catesby rather than Stillington, and I'm not persuaded that Richard killed Hastings because he knew about the precontract and remained silent, either. Still, the connections he points out between Catesby and others are interesting (if only his writing style didn't lag on occasion!). I'll be interested in what you think when you've finished the book.
>
> Carol
>

Eileen wrote:
>
> Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
>
> Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).

Carol

Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
> >
> > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> >
> > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
>

Carol responds:

Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.

Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
























> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> > >
> > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > >
> > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Carol,
I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> >
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
>
> Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
>
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > >
> > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>

I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.

What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol,
> I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> Ishita
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > >
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> >
> > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > >
> > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi, Maire –

I’ve got *Under the Hog,* thanks to the discussion of a couple weeks ago,
but I’m nowhere near starting to read it. Not only do I have dozens of books
on Richard, both fiction and non-fiction, most of which I haven’t read, but
now I’ve got to do my final paper for Theology, which is going to be on
“Martin Luther’s Views on Jews and Judaism.” Due by Dec. 11 – I haven’t even
started it! Bummer! I’d rather be reading and thinking about Richard!!



It is interesting that Richard has been inspirational for so many writers. I
think the best writers are very intuitive, and I think it takes intuition to
realize that the real man was so different from the Tudor myth. And the
record is so ambiguous or even lacking in some important areas, it means
that there is lots of room for hypothesizing about what Richard was *really*
like, and about what *really* happened.



However – I can’t think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis.
Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can’t
think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe
some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that
depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? Despite what some people may
feel, I think the fact that he wasn’t physically “perfect” makes him all the
greater in my eyes. I would like to read a wonderful novel about Richard
that depicts him sympathetically in that way.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne







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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:34 AM
To:
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought





I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The
White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not
as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.

What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works
of fiction? Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo
<bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol,
> I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with
either!
> Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so
far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard
Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> Ishita
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought
at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im
pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at
Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > >
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading
Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil
figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not
being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and
a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange
novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read
it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The
author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison
Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> >
> > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
<justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe
discuss....
> > > > >
> > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of
days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't
find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably
still under copyright).
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!

"Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working - rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.

I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.

You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in 1975 and was fascinated!


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Maire –
>
> I've got *Under the Hog,* thanks to the discussion of a couple weeks ago,
> but I'm nowhere near starting to read it. Not only do I have dozens of books
> on Richard, both fiction and non-fiction, most of which I haven't read, but
> now I've got to do my final paper for Theology, which is going to be on
> "Martin Luther's Views on Jews and Judaism." Due by Dec. 11 – I haven't even
> started it! Bummer! I'd rather be reading and thinking about Richard!!
>
>
>
> It is interesting that Richard has been inspirational for so many writers. I
> think the best writers are very intuitive, and I think it takes intuition to
> realize that the real man was so different from the Tudor myth. And the
> record is so ambiguous or even lacking in some important areas, it means
> that there is lots of room for hypothesizing about what Richard was *really*
> like, and about what *really* happened.
>
>
>
> However – I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis.
> Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't
> think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe
> some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that
> depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? Despite what some people may
> feel, I think the fact that he wasn't physically "perfect" makes him all the
> greater in my eyes. I would like to read a wonderful novel about Richard
> that depicts him sympathetically in that way.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:34 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
>
>
>
>
> I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The
> White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not
> as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
>
> What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works
> of fiction? Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo
> <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with
> either!
> > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so
> far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard
> Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought
> at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im
> pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at
> Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading
> Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil
> figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not
> being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and
> a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange
> novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read
> it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The
> author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison
> Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe
> discuss....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of
> days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't
> find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably
> still under copyright).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

P.S.: I just remembered that in "The White Boar," Richard always makes sure that no one sees him in his shirtsleeves. That's the only reference to his imperfection but it makes a great impression. As I say, some of these writers are very creative. Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Maire –
>
> I've got *Under the Hog,* thanks to the discussion of a couple weeks ago,
> but I'm nowhere near starting to read it. Not only do I have dozens of books
> on Richard, both fiction and non-fiction, most of which I haven't read, but
> now I've got to do my final paper for Theology, which is going to be on
> "Martin Luther's Views on Jews and Judaism." Due by Dec. 11 – I haven't even
> started it! Bummer! I'd rather be reading and thinking about Richard!!
>
>
>
> It is interesting that Richard has been inspirational for so many writers. I
> think the best writers are very intuitive, and I think it takes intuition to
> realize that the real man was so different from the Tudor myth. And the
> record is so ambiguous or even lacking in some important areas, it means
> that there is lots of room for hypothesizing about what Richard was *really*
> like, and about what *really* happened.
>
>
>
> However – I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis.
> Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't
> think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe
> some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that
> depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? Despite what some people may
> feel, I think the fact that he wasn't physically "perfect" makes him all the
> greater in my eyes. I would like to read a wonderful novel about Richard
> that depicts him sympathetically in that way.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:34 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
>
>
>
>
> I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The
> White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not
> as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
>
> What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works
> of fiction? Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo
> <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with
> either!
> > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so
> far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard
> Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought
> at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im
> pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at
> Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading
> Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil
> figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not
> being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and
> a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange
> novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read
> it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The
> author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison
> Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe
> discuss....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of
> days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't
> find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably
> still under copyright).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Carol,
> I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.

Carol responds:

Thanks, Ishita. It's funny--I was actually thinking of writing my own Ricardian novel when I accidentally discovered a then-new novel called "Sunne in Splendour," which I guessed from the title would be about Edward IV. I was simultaneously pleased and disappointed to find that it was about (more or less) "my" Richard. I'm still trying to find another book that presents the characters in anything resembling the light that I see them. Maybe "My Lords Richard" will be the one! I'll give it a try.

Carol

Johanne wrote:
<snip>

> However – I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>

Carol responds:

Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait. Sharon Kay Penman has him break his collarbone while he's practicing at the quintain at Warwick's; "The Thwarted Queen" gives him an enlarged right shoulder (like many other knights, appparently) from practicing at the quintain. Interestingly, Kendall makes the same suggestion. I can't recall any others at the moment. (Marjorie Bowen's Dickon appears to be physically perfect and handsome, but small and quiet. Haven't gotten far yet because, as someone else mentioned, the frequent appearances of "Jon" Fogge as the House of York's particular devil are quite annoying.)

At least we can be sure that Richard never developed a "wine belly" from too much swan and malmsey!

Carol

I believe there's a novel by R.L. Stevenson. Can't recall the title, but I'm pretty sure it's got hunchbacked R.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought


 
Johanne wrote:
<snip>

> However  I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>

Carol responds:

Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait. Sharon Kay Penman has him break his collarbone while he's practicing at the quintain at Warwick's; "The Thwarted Queen" gives him an enlarged right shoulder (like many other knights, appparently) from practicing at the quintain. Interestingly, Kendall makes the same suggestion. I can't recall any others at the moment. (Marjorie Bowen's Dickon appears to be physically perfect and handsome, but small and quiet. Haven't gotten far yet because, as someone else mentioned, the frequent appearances of "Jon" Fogge as the House of York's particular devil are quite annoying.)

At least we can be sure that Richard never developed a "wine belly" from too much swan and malmsey!

Carol

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!
>
> "Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working - rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.
>
> I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.
>
> You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in 1975 and was fascinated!

Carol responds:

For me it began with Shakespeare's "Richard III," which clearly was not a depiction of a real human being. I knew that he could not have been *that* deformed and still have fought in various battles and could not have murdered his way to the throne (starting with Edward of Lancaster) without being suspected of treasonous ambitions. When I discovered that Shakespeare had placed him in a battle fought when he was an eight-year-old fugitive in Burgundy, essentially switching his age with his brother Edmund's, I immediately started researching to see what else Shakespeare had changed. And, of course, I found more than I'd expected by far.

But, yes, that portrait is compelling. I much prefer it to the College of Arms portrait, which is less skillfully rendered.

Carol

Is that "The Black Arrow"? I haven't read that one although I'm partial to a bit of Stevenson now and again. Especially "Kidnapped".

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I believe there's a novel by R.L. Stevenson. Can't recall the title, but I'm pretty sure it's got hunchbacked R.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>

Speaking of portraits, I knew I was a Richardian once I saw the awful portrait of Henry the VII. What a little rat-face he has!

I'm also not fond of the portrait of Edward the Fourth. He looks so much like Henry the Eighth! Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!
> >
> > "Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working - rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.
> >
> > I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.
> >
> > You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in 1975 and was fascinated!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> For me it began with Shakespeare's "Richard III," which clearly was not a depiction of a real human being. I knew that he could not have been *that* deformed and still have fought in various battles and could not have murdered his way to the throne (starting with Edward of Lancaster) without being suspected of treasonous ambitions. When I discovered that Shakespeare had placed him in a battle fought when he was an eight-year-old fugitive in Burgundy, essentially switching his age with his brother Edmund's, I immediately started researching to see what else Shakespeare had changed. And, of course, I found more than I'd expected by far.
>
> But, yes, that portrait is compelling. I much prefer it to the College of Arms portrait, which is less skillfully rendered.
>
> Carol
>

Hi again, Maire -



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought

You wrote -

Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on
Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!

[JLT] I hope I do - eventually! In the meantime, it's fun to be able to dip
into one book, get a little taste, and then go on to the next. The problem
with that technique is that I forget where I've read certain things just
recently. I used to have a photographic memory, about now all I've got are
fuzzy black-and-white snapshots, LOL! In addition to that, it is tough to
study Richard and his times (as people here can well attest) unless you are
able to somehow have multiple Richards, Edwards, Henrys and Georges (not to
mention Margarets, Catherines, and Cecilys) distinguished in one's mind. I
am still boggled by it all!!

You wrote -

"Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not
deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that
novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working -
rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with
George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.

[JLT] From what I've read about it, it sounds like it's structured much like
the novel *Dracula,* one of my favourite books, with journals, letters, and
testimony from various people who lived at the period and surrounded or
interacted with Richard. I think it's interesting that relatively few books
actually focus on the world from Richard's point of view. He is usually the
central, charismatic figure around which everything revolves, but though we
may see him, we don't actually see things through his eyes. *Dickon* (which
I started last night) seems to be an exception to that, but for some of the
reasons mentioned by Carol, I don't think I'm going to be completely
enamored with it, either. However, it does seem to be focusing on events
from Richard's point of view.

Come to think of it, the fact that Richard may be central to many of these
stories but remains mysterious is also a characteristic of *Dracula,*
wherein the eponymous central figure remains for the most part a shadowy
figure who affects the heroes and heroines from off centre stage. It may be
that if one starts to depict such a character as a real human being, they
often become too prosaic. I think in Richard's case, if he was, as I
believe, a man of remarkable achievements, even genius, to really do justice
to him in any work of literature - well, the author really has to be someone
of genius as well. And, unfortunately, in most cases that is not the case.

I don't know anything about *The White Boar,* btw. I looked on kindle, and
it's not available there. Do you know anything about it? That title is a bit
better than *Under the Hog,* which is rather awful, although it does sound
like an intriguing book.

You wrote -

I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As
far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's
not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.

[JLT] I suspect that the padded shoulders favoured during the period could
have minimized the appearance of uneven shoulders; all you would need is to
pad or puff up one side a bit more than the other. And I presume that
Richard's clothes would have been custom made for him (as they would have
been for other nobles), not picked off the rack. <no pun intended>

I don't think of scoliosis as a handicap, but I have read that if it's the
progressive variety, which I believe Richards' was, if untreated it can
worsen with age. I also read that vigorous physical activity can cause it to
worsen. I can't imagine that there would have been any treatment for the
condition in Richard's day, so I think he probably suffered from chronic
pain. If you think of Elizabeth Taylor, who suffered from scoliosis, there
were times that she was hospitalized for her "bad back" or "back problems,"
although I don't think they gave any details of her condition at the time.
If the scoliosis was severe enough, it may also taken some inches off his
height. I tend to think of Richard as about 5'5" or less, which would have
made him seem even shorter next to the very tall Edward. My grandfather was
5'2" and I am the same height. There is some prejudice against short guys
just for being below average height - and there is some "credit" (don't know
the best word) that men like Edward get just because they are tall, which
makes them look more "kingly."

You wrote:

You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things
in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins
with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in
1975 and was fascinated!

[JLT] Obviously Josephine Tey felt that attraction! I am still mesmerized by
that portrait, although I'm willing to admit that the Society of Antiquaries
portrait is probably a more accurate likeness of Richard as he was in life.

I hope we will soon be in a position to judge that for certain! <smile>

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne


_._,_.___



<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxb2x2
ZHZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzIw
NDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--?act=reply&messageNum=20
412> Reply via web post


<mailto:mairemulholland@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%20a%20thought
> Reply to sender


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%
20a%20thought> Reply to group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc29y
MjF2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Start a New Topic


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/20356;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2NXRtMnFzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzIwNDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQR0cGNJZAMyMDM1Ng-
-> Messages in this topic (16)

Recent Activity:

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM
DYycWVuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-?o=6> New Members 2

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjZ
nYmFoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-> New Photos 1


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmI2ZzczB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmZlbDU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0MzY4MzQx>
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
=20412/stime=1354368341/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>

Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
>
> What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I suppose that Sig doers still count as an improvement then.

LOL.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Maire -
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:26 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
> You wrote -
>
> Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on
> Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!
>
> [JLT] I hope I do - eventually! In the meantime, it's fun to be able to dip
> into one book, get a little taste, and then go on to the next. The problem
> with that technique is that I forget where I've read certain things just
> recently. I used to have a photographic memory, about now all I've got are
> fuzzy black-and-white snapshots, LOL! In addition to that, it is tough to
> study Richard and his times (as people here can well attest) unless you are
> able to somehow have multiple Richards, Edwards, Henrys and Georges (not to
> mention Margarets, Catherines, and Cecilys) distinguished in one's mind. I
> am still boggled by it all!!
>
> You wrote -
>
> "Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not
> deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that
> novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working -
> rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with
> George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.
>
> [JLT] From what I've read about it, it sounds like it's structured much like
> the novel *Dracula,* one of my favourite books, with journals, letters, and
> testimony from various people who lived at the period and surrounded or
> interacted with Richard. I think it's interesting that relatively few books
> actually focus on the world from Richard's point of view. He is usually the
> central, charismatic figure around which everything revolves, but though we
> may see him, we don't actually see things through his eyes. *Dickon* (which
> I started last night) seems to be an exception to that, but for some of the
> reasons mentioned by Carol, I don't think I'm going to be completely
> enamored with it, either. However, it does seem to be focusing on events
> from Richard's point of view.
>
> Come to think of it, the fact that Richard may be central to many of these
> stories but remains mysterious is also a characteristic of *Dracula,*
> wherein the eponymous central figure remains for the most part a shadowy
> figure who affects the heroes and heroines from off centre stage. It may be
> that if one starts to depict such a character as a real human being, they
> often become too prosaic. I think in Richard's case, if he was, as I
> believe, a man of remarkable achievements, even genius, to really do justice
> to him in any work of literature - well, the author really has to be someone
> of genius as well. And, unfortunately, in most cases that is not the case.
>
> I don't know anything about *The White Boar,* btw. I looked on kindle, and
> it's not available there. Do you know anything about it? That title is a bit
> better than *Under the Hog,* which is rather awful, although it does sound
> like an intriguing book.
>
> You wrote -
>
> I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As
> far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's
> not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.
>
> [JLT] I suspect that the padded shoulders favoured during the period could
> have minimized the appearance of uneven shoulders; all you would need is to
> pad or puff up one side a bit more than the other. And I presume that
> Richard's clothes would have been custom made for him (as they would have
> been for other nobles), not picked off the rack. <no pun intended>
>
> I don't think of scoliosis as a handicap, but I have read that if it's the
> progressive variety, which I believe Richards' was, if untreated it can
> worsen with age. I also read that vigorous physical activity can cause it to
> worsen. I can't imagine that there would have been any treatment for the
> condition in Richard's day, so I think he probably suffered from chronic
> pain. If you think of Elizabeth Taylor, who suffered from scoliosis, there
> were times that she was hospitalized for her "bad back" or "back problems,"
> although I don't think they gave any details of her condition at the time.
> If the scoliosis was severe enough, it may also taken some inches off his
> height. I tend to think of Richard as about 5'5" or less, which would have
> made him seem even shorter next to the very tall Edward. My grandfather was
> 5'2" and I am the same height. There is some prejudice against short guys
> just for being below average height - and there is some "credit" (don't know
> the best word) that men like Edward get just because they are tall, which
> makes them look more "kingly."
>
> You wrote:
>
> You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things
> in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins
> with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in
> 1975 and was fascinated!
>
> [JLT] Obviously Josephine Tey felt that attraction! I am still mesmerized by
> that portrait, although I'm willing to admit that the Society of Antiquaries
> portrait is probably a more accurate likeness of Richard as he was in life.
>
> I hope we will soon be in a position to judge that for certain! <smile>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
>
> _._,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxb2x2
> ZHZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzIw
> NDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--?act=reply&messageNum=20
> 412> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:mairemulholland@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
> %20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%20a%20thought
> > Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%
> 20a%20thought> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc29y
> MjF2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/20356;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2NXRtMnFzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzIwNDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQR0cGNJZAMyMDM1Ng-
> -> Messages in this topic (16)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM
> DYycWVuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjZ
> nYmFoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmI2ZzczB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmZlbDU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0MzY4MzQx>
> 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
> =20412/stime=1354368341/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

We decided Henry bears a striking resemblance to Dr. Smith from Lost in Space. Look at the Torrigiano bust in the V&A. You'll never look at it the same way again. :-)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought


 
Speaking of portraits, I knew I was a Richardian once I saw the awful portrait of Henry the VII. What a little rat-face he has!

I'm also not fond of the portrait of Edward the Fourth. He looks so much like Henry the Eighth! Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!
> >
> > "Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working - rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.
> >
> > I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.
> >
> > You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in 1975 and was fascinated!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> For me it began with Shakespeare's "Richard III," which clearly was not a depiction of a real human being. I knew that he could not have been *that* deformed and still have fought in various battles and could not have murdered his way to the throne (starting with Edward of Lancaster) without being suspected of treasonous ambitions. When I discovered that Shakespeare had placed him in a battle fought when he was an eight-year-old fugitive in Burgundy, essentially switching his age with his brother Edmund's, I immediately started researching to see what else Shakespeare had changed. And, of course, I found more than I'd expected by far.
>
> But, yes, that portrait is compelling. I much prefer it to the College of Arms portrait, which is less skillfully rendered.
>
> Carol
>

Black Arrow sounds right. Haven't read it in years, of course.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2012 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought


 
Is that "The Black Arrow"? I haven't read that one although I'm partial to a bit of Stevenson now and again. Especially "Kidnapped".

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> I believe there's a novel by R.L. Stevenson. Can't recall the title, but I'm pretty sure it's got hunchbacked R.
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>

Carol earlier:
<snip>
> But, yes, that portrait is compelling. I much prefer it to the College of Arms portrait, which is less skillfully rendered.

Carol again:

Oops. Of course, I meant the Society of Antiquities portrait. I hate that unflattering cloth-of-gold robe, by the way.

Carol

Uh-huh. Although, as I wrote earlier in the same thread, I think the Society
of Antiquaries portrait is probably closest to the original life portrait of
Richard. But the faces of both portraits are not too dissimilar, and of
course it's the expression of pain around the eyes that is so striking in
the NPG portrait.



You're right about the cloth of gold robe being unflattering. I wonder if he
had to put that on to get his portrait painted, "Here, Your Grace, just slip
this on, it's the latest rage and all the crowned heads of Europe are
wearing them this year."



BTW, the fact that one of the hands is painted so clumsily may be why
Richard was thought to have had a withered arm and hand. I know that Olivier
in his *Richard III* had a special glove on his left hand that concealed the
two middle fingers and made his hand look deformed.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 1:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought





Carol earlier:
<snip>
> But, yes, that portrait is compelling. I much prefer it to the College of
Arms portrait, which is less skillfully rendered.

Carol again:

Oops. Of course, I meant the Society of Antiquities portrait. I hate that
unflattering cloth-of-gold robe, by the way.

Carol

Eileen: I wrote another answer to this post but it disappeared into the ether. Grrr!

I love the portrait of Edward in UTH - one step up from a Menendez Brother - or at least a mini-me Anthony Rivers. Poor Richard trying to get the kid to lay off the sauce! In "The White Boar" the scene is much more poignant with Edward practising his handwriting while Richard looks on.

--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
> >
> > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
> >
> > --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol,
> > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > > >
> > > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Johanne: I love your name, by the way. It's the same spelling in German, I believe, as Joan of Arc's. Her real name was Jehanne. Next to Richard, she is my favorite medieval personality.

I love Dracula. What a great storyteller Mr. Stoker was!

Under the Hog doesn't use letters to tell the story but Richard is seen through the eyes of various individuals. In The White Boar he is seen primarily through the eyes of Francis and Phillip Lovell. Phillip is a fictional character who seems based on Francis - if you can understand that! The scene at Bosworth Field is worth the price of the book. Keep looking for it on Amazon.


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Maire -
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:26 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
> You wrote -
>
> Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on
> Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!
>
> [JLT] I hope I do - eventually! In the meantime, it's fun to be able to dip
> into one book, get a little taste, and then go on to the next. The problem
> with that technique is that I forget where I've read certain things just
> recently. I used to have a photographic memory, about now all I've got are
> fuzzy black-and-white snapshots, LOL! In addition to that, it is tough to
> study Richard and his times (as people here can well attest) unless you are
> able to somehow have multiple Richards, Edwards, Henrys and Georges (not to
> mention Margarets, Catherines, and Cecilys) distinguished in one's mind. I
> am still boggled by it all!!
>
> You wrote -
>
> "Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not
> deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that
> novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working -
> rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with
> George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.
>
> [JLT] From what I've read about it, it sounds like it's structured much like
> the novel *Dracula,* one of my favourite books, with journals, letters, and
> testimony from various people who lived at the period and surrounded or
> interacted with Richard. I think it's interesting that relatively few books
> actually focus on the world from Richard's point of view. He is usually the
> central, charismatic figure around which everything revolves, but though we
> may see him, we don't actually see things through his eyes. *Dickon* (which
> I started last night) seems to be an exception to that, but for some of the
> reasons mentioned by Carol, I don't think I'm going to be completely
> enamored with it, either. However, it does seem to be focusing on events
> from Richard's point of view.
>
> Come to think of it, the fact that Richard may be central to many of these
> stories but remains mysterious is also a characteristic of *Dracula,*
> wherein the eponymous central figure remains for the most part a shadowy
> figure who affects the heroes and heroines from off centre stage. It may be
> that if one starts to depict such a character as a real human being, they
> often become too prosaic. I think in Richard's case, if he was, as I
> believe, a man of remarkable achievements, even genius, to really do justice
> to him in any work of literature - well, the author really has to be someone
> of genius as well. And, unfortunately, in most cases that is not the case.
>
> I don't know anything about *The White Boar,* btw. I looked on kindle, and
> it's not available there. Do you know anything about it? That title is a bit
> better than *Under the Hog,* which is rather awful, although it does sound
> like an intriguing book.
>
> You wrote -
>
> I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As
> far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's
> not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.
>
> [JLT] I suspect that the padded shoulders favoured during the period could
> have minimized the appearance of uneven shoulders; all you would need is to
> pad or puff up one side a bit more than the other. And I presume that
> Richard's clothes would have been custom made for him (as they would have
> been for other nobles), not picked off the rack. <no pun intended>
>
> I don't think of scoliosis as a handicap, but I have read that if it's the
> progressive variety, which I believe Richards' was, if untreated it can
> worsen with age. I also read that vigorous physical activity can cause it to
> worsen. I can't imagine that there would have been any treatment for the
> condition in Richard's day, so I think he probably suffered from chronic
> pain. If you think of Elizabeth Taylor, who suffered from scoliosis, there
> were times that she was hospitalized for her "bad back" or "back problems,"
> although I don't think they gave any details of her condition at the time.
> If the scoliosis was severe enough, it may also taken some inches off his
> height. I tend to think of Richard as about 5'5" or less, which would have
> made him seem even shorter next to the very tall Edward. My grandfather was
> 5'2" and I am the same height. There is some prejudice against short guys
> just for being below average height - and there is some "credit" (don't know
> the best word) that men like Edward get just because they are tall, which
> makes them look more "kingly."
>
> You wrote:
>
> You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things
> in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins
> with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in
> 1975 and was fascinated!
>
> [JLT] Obviously Josephine Tey felt that attraction! I am still mesmerized by
> that portrait, although I'm willing to admit that the Society of Antiquaries
> portrait is probably a more accurate likeness of Richard as he was in life.
>
> I hope we will soon be in a position to judge that for certain! <smile>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
>
> _._,_.___
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxb2x2
> ZHZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzIw
> NDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--?act=reply&messageNum=20
> 412> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:mairemulholland@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
> %20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%20a%20thought
> > Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%
> 20a%20thought> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc29y
> MjF2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/20356;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2NXRtMnFzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzIwNDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQR0cGNJZAMyMDM1Ng-
> -> Messages in this topic (16)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM
> DYycWVuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-?o=6> New Members 2
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjZ
> nYmFoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmI2ZzczB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmZlbDU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0MzY4MzQx>
> 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
> =20412/stime=1354368341/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is on Amazon for a shade under £30.  Bit expensive.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
Subject: UNDER THE HOG

 
Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
>
> What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Penman depicts Richard as having uneven shoulders. I just read on her Facebook that she herself suffers from scoliosis. No one knew about the scoliosis angle before the dig! Talk about coincidence!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 1, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hi, Maire 
>
> I've got *Under the Hog,* thanks to the discussion of a couple weeks ago,
> but I'm nowhere near starting to read it. Not only do I have dozens of books
> on Richard, both fiction and non-fiction, most of which I haven't read, but
> now I've got to do my final paper for Theology, which is going to be on
> Martin Luther's Views on Jews and Judaism. Due by Dec. 11  I haven't even
> started it! Bummer! I'd rather be reading and thinking about Richard!!
>
> It is interesting that Richard has been inspirational for so many writers. I
> think the best writers are very intuitive, and I think it takes intuition to
> realize that the real man was so different from the Tudor myth. And the
> record is so ambiguous or even lacking in some important areas, it means
> that there is lots of room for hypothesizing about what Richard was *really*
> like, and about what *really* happened.
>
> However  I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis.
> Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't
> think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe
> some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that
> depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? Despite what some people may
> feel, I think the fact that he wasn't physically perfect makes him all the
> greater in my eyes. I would like to read a wonderful novel about Richard
> that depicts him sympathetically in that way.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:34 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
> I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The
> White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not
> as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
>
> What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works
> of fiction? Maire.
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Ishita Bandyo
> <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with
> either!
> > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so
> far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard
> Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > Ishita
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought
> at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im
> pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at
> Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > >
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading
> Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil
> figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not
> being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and
> a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange
> novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read
> it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The
> author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison
> Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > >
> > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67"
> <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe
> discuss....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of
> days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't
> find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably
> still under copyright).
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol, please do write another book about Richard !! I will read it. The more the good books out there, the better the chance to " mainstream" him!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:50 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Carol,
> > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Ishita. It's funny--I was actually thinking of writing my own Ricardian novel when I accidentally discovered a then-new novel called "Sunne in Splendour," which I guessed from the title would be about Edward IV. I was simultaneously pleased and disappointed to find that it was about (more or less) "my" Richard. I'm still trying to find another book that presents the characters in anything resembling the light that I see them. Maybe "My Lords Richard" will be the one! I'll give it a try.
>
> Carol
>
>

Liz...Crikey that is expensive...I got mine really cheap. I've taken a look on Alibris for you and there is one for about £14..but that is still a lot of money...What about Ebay?

I bet the Barton Library has a copy, I dont know if you are a member of the Society...?

Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is on Amazon for a shade under £30.  Bit expensive.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> Subject: UNDER THE HOG
>
>  
> Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
> >
> > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol,
> > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

There is one on Abe Books for $1!!
http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/under-hog/n/200000169/

grab it quick!!

On 1 December 2012 18:34, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Liz...Crikey that is expensive...I got mine really cheap. I've taken a
> look on Alibris for you and there is one for about ý14..but that is still a
> lot of money...What about Ebay?
>
> I bet the Barton Library has a copy, I dont know if you are a member of
> the Society...?
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is
> on Amazon for a shade under ýý30.ý Bit expensive.
> > ý
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> > Subject: UNDER THE HOG
> >
> > ý
> > Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as
> it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than
> that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in
> them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden!
> .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after
> meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It
> makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in
> actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed
> picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian
> novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as
> my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of
> "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really
> excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world
> very well.
> > >
> > > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine
> works of fiction? Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol,
> > > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored
> with either!
> > > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like
> it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and
> Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I
> thought at ýýýý20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition.
> But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called
> Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm
> reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the
> devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George
> not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower)
> and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very
> strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If
> you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot
> point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who
> cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about
> Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe
> discuss....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last
> couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying
> it....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I
> can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online
> (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

Bette still Abe Books UK has one for 62p plus £3 pp....Eileen

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> There is one on Abe Books for $1!!
> http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/under-hog/n/200000169/
>
> grab it quick!!
>
> On 1 December 2012 18:34, EileenB <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Liz...Crikey that is expensive...I got mine really cheap. I've taken a
> > look on Alibris for you and there is one for about £14..but that is still a
> > lot of money...What about Ebay?
> >
> > I bet the Barton Library has a copy, I dont know if you are a member of
> > the Society...?
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , liz williams
> > <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is
> > on Amazon for a shade under £30. Bit expensive.
> > > Â
> > > Liz
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> > > Subject: UNDER THE HOG
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as
> > it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than
> > that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in
> > them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden!
> > .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after
> > meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It
> > makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in
> > actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed
> > picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian
> > novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as
> > my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of
> > "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really
> > excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world
> > very well.
> > > >
> > > > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine
> > works of fiction? Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo
> > <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol,
> > > > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored
> > with either!
> > > > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like
> > it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and
> > Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I
> > thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition.
> > But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called
> > Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm
> > reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the
> > devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George
> > not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower)
> > and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very
> > strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If
> > you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot
> > point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who
> > cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about
> > Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe
> > discuss....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last
> > couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying
> > it....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I
> > can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online
> > (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, please do write another book about Richard !! I will read it. The more the good books out there, the better the chance to " mainstream" him!

Carol responds:

Thanks, Ishita. But I keep having this "it's already been done" feeling. Maybe after I get caught up on my Ricardian research. I let my subscription lapse for too long!

Carol

Another book that I found on Kindle is Treason.
I think the Martin character, the narrator, is a spin off Francis Lovell.
Also a free book on Kindle is Loyalty. It is told by More!!!! To Holbien. Umm, yeah ,a little weird but apparently More gives the true story not the "More version "!!!

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 1, 2012, at 1:20 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> Johanne: I love your name, by the way. It's the same spelling in German, I believe, as Joan of Arc's. Her real name was Jehanne. Next to Richard, she is my favorite medieval personality.
>
> I love Dracula. What a great storyteller Mr. Stoker was!
>
> Under the Hog doesn't use letters to tell the story but Richard is seen through the eyes of various individuals. In The White Boar he is seen primarily through the eyes of Francis and Phillip Lovell. Phillip is a fictional character who seems based on Francis - if you can understand that! The scene at Bosworth Field is worth the price of the book. Keep looking for it on Amazon.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again, Maire -
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:26 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> > thought
> >
> > You wrote -
> >
> > Hi, Johanne! I hope one day you get to read all the books you've acquired on
> > Richard. I now have dozens sitting around. I sometimes get them mixed up!
> >
> > [JLT] I hope I do - eventually! In the meantime, it's fun to be able to dip
> > into one book, get a little taste, and then go on to the next. The problem
> > with that technique is that I forget where I've read certain things just
> > recently. I used to have a photographic memory, about now all I've got are
> > fuzzy black-and-white snapshots, LOL! In addition to that, it is tough to
> > study Richard and his times (as people here can well attest) unless you are
> > able to somehow have multiple Richards, Edwards, Henrys and Georges (not to
> > mention Margarets, Catherines, and Cecilys) distinguished in one's mind. I
> > am still boggled by it all!!
> >
> > You wrote -
> >
> > "Under the Hog" (I hate that title!!) presents him as very, very small. Not
> > deformed in any way but a little like a frog on a lily pad, lol! One of that
> > novel's strong points is that there are many scenes showing him working -
> > rather than spending time with Anne or one of his mistresses or arguing with
> > George. You really get the impression of a workaholic personality.
> >
> > [JLT] From what I've read about it, it sounds like it's structured much like
> > the novel *Dracula,* one of my favourite books, with journals, letters, and
> > testimony from various people who lived at the period and surrounded or
> > interacted with Richard. I think it's interesting that relatively few books
> > actually focus on the world from Richard's point of view. He is usually the
> > central, charismatic figure around which everything revolves, but though we
> > may see him, we don't actually see things through his eyes. *Dickon* (which
> > I started last night) seems to be an exception to that, but for some of the
> > reasons mentioned by Carol, I don't think I'm going to be completely
> > enamored with it, either. However, it does seem to be focusing on events
> > from Richard's point of view.
> >
> > Come to think of it, the fact that Richard may be central to many of these
> > stories but remains mysterious is also a characteristic of *Dracula,*
> > wherein the eponymous central figure remains for the most part a shadowy
> > figure who affects the heroes and heroines from off centre stage. It may be
> > that if one starts to depict such a character as a real human being, they
> > often become too prosaic. I think in Richard's case, if he was, as I
> > believe, a man of remarkable achievements, even genius, to really do justice
> > to him in any work of literature - well, the author really has to be someone
> > of genius as well. And, unfortunately, in most cases that is not the case.
> >
> > I don't know anything about *The White Boar,* btw. I looked on kindle, and
> > it's not available there. Do you know anything about it? That title is a bit
> > better than *Under the Hog,* which is rather awful, although it does sound
> > like an intriguing book.
> >
> > You wrote -
> >
> > I'm sure there are anti-Richard novels that present him as a hunchback. As
> > far as scoliosis, I have had friends over the years who have had it. It's
> > not really uncommon and it doesn't always show through clothes.
> >
> > [JLT] I suspect that the padded shoulders favoured during the period could
> > have minimized the appearance of uneven shoulders; all you would need is to
> > pad or puff up one side a bit more than the other. And I presume that
> > Richard's clothes would have been custom made for him (as they would have
> > been for other nobles), not picked off the rack. <no pun intended>
> >
> > I don't think of scoliosis as a handicap, but I have read that if it's the
> > progressive variety, which I believe Richards' was, if untreated it can
> > worsen with age. I also read that vigorous physical activity can cause it to
> > worsen. I can't imagine that there would have been any treatment for the
> > condition in Richard's day, so I think he probably suffered from chronic
> > pain. If you think of Elizabeth Taylor, who suffered from scoliosis, there
> > were times that she was hospitalized for her "bad back" or "back problems,"
> > although I don't think they gave any details of her condition at the time.
> > If the scoliosis was severe enough, it may also taken some inches off his
> > height. I tend to think of Richard as about 5'5" or less, which would have
> > made him seem even shorter next to the very tall Edward. My grandfather was
> > 5'2" and I am the same height. There is some prejudice against short guys
> > just for being below average height - and there is some "credit" (don't know
> > the best word) that men like Edward get just because they are tall, which
> > makes them look more "kingly."
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > You are right about authors being intuitive. Many of them have seen things
> > in this King that historians have not. Personally, I think it all begins
> > with the portrait in the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it there first in
> > 1975 and was fascinated!
> >
> > [JLT] Obviously Josephine Tey felt that attraction! I am still mesmerized by
> > that portrait, although I'm willing to admit that the Society of Antiquaries
> > portrait is probably a more accurate likeness of Richard as he was in life.
> >
> > I hope we will soon be in a position to judge that for certain! <smile>
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> > _._,_.___
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxb2x2
> > ZHZ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzIw
> > NDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--?act=reply&messageNum=20
> > 412> Reply via web post
> >
> >
> > <mailto:mairemulholland@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society
> > %20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%20a%20thought
> > > Reply to sender
> >
> >
> > <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> > III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Re%3A%20available%20research%20pamplets%2E%2E%20%
> > 20a%20thought> Reply to group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc29y
> > MjF2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> > c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Start a New Topic
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/20356;_ylc=X3o
> > DMTM2NXRtMnFzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> > zZ0lkAzIwNDEyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQR0cGNJZAMyMDM1Ng-
> > -> Messages in this topic (16)
> >
> > Recent Activity:
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmM
> > DYycWVuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> > GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-?o=6> New Members 2
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjZ
> > nYmFoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> > Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQzNjgzNDE-> New Photos 1
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldmI2ZzczB
> > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> > 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDM2ODM0MQ--> Visit Your Group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkNmZlbDU5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0MzY4MzQx>
> > 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
> > =20412/stime=1354368341/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Eileen, I got this one from Albris. I haven't gone far but the author does called Richard, "an ape" and a dwarf at two different situations...... Maybe that's the reason I did not get far. Will give it another go!

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:45 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is on Amazon for a shade under £30. Bit expensive.
>
> Liz
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> Subject: UNDER THE HOG
>
>
> Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> >
> > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
> >
> > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol,
> > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > Ishita
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > >
> > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol, you can probably do a "Dracula" type take on Richard. I think it will be an intriguing piece! I have no talent in writing and is in awe of writers!

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 1, 2012, at 6:15 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carol, please do write another book about Richard !! I will read it. The more the good books out there, the better the chance to " mainstream" him!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Ishita. But I keep having this "it's already been done" feeling. Maybe after I get caught up on my Ricardian research. I let my subscription lapse for too long!
>
> Carol
>
>

Geoffrey published his books privately if I recall correctly, hence it's difficulty to find. Maybe the Yorkshire branch of the Society has some copies for sale? I also remember seeing copies in the Battlefield Centre store at Bosworth. They may takes orders on line
Paul


On 30 Nov 2012, at 20:31, justcarol67 wrote:

> Eileen wrote:
>>
>> Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
>>
>> Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I always think of the coronation and how for the anointing he and his queen were stripped to the waist for that part of the ceremony. No mention of it taking place in private, yet nobody as far as we know mentioned anything out of the ordinary about Richard's physique, something the likes of Margaret Beaufort would have pounced on had there been anything.
Paul


On 1 Dec 2012, at 15:23, justcarol67 wrote:

> Johanne wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> However  I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait. Sharon Kay Penman has him break his collarbone while he's practicing at the quintain at Warwick's; "The Thwarted Queen" gives him an enlarged right shoulder (like many other knights, appparently) from practicing at the quintain. Interestingly, Kendall makes the same suggestion. I can't recall any others at the moment. (Marjorie Bowen's Dickon appears to be physically perfect and handsome, but small and quiet. Haven't gotten far yet because, as someone else mentioned, the frequent appearances of "Jon" Fogge as the House of York's particular devil are quite annoying.)
>
> At least we can be sure that Richard never developed a "wine belly" from too much swan and malmsey!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

It's the characters who call Richard names. He did have enemies and enemies will insult. The author is clearly sympathetic to Richard. I wouldn't forego reading it because George and various other people in the story are insulting bores! Maire.
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I got this one from Albris. I haven't gone far but the author does called Richard, "an ape" and a dwarf at two different situations...... Maybe that's the reason I did not get far. Will give it another go!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:45 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is on Amazon for a shade under £30. Bit expensive.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> > Subject: UNDER THE HOG
> >
> >
> > Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
> > >
> > > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol,
> > > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hi, Paul -

-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 7:23 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought

You wrote -
I always think of the coronation and how for the anointing he and his queen
were stripped to the waist for that part of the ceremony. No mention of it
taking place in private, yet nobody as far as we know mentioned anything out
of the ordinary about Richard's physique, something the likes of Margaret
Beaufort would have pounced on had there been anything.
Paul

[JLT] I still don't have my copy of *The Coronation of Richard III* - and of
course I'm speculating here a bit - but I'm presuming that the Coronation
ceremony would not have been open to the public. There would have been a lot
of people there, but they may have been people who were, in the main,
favourably disposed to Richard. Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may
have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading
tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at
that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period
that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. I would think it likely
that that would have been quite visible during the coronation ceremony where
the king and queen are stripped to the waist, if it was visible when he was
wearing his doublet. If indeed Richard had scoliosis, and I think that's a
more likely cause of the uneven shoulders than the possible causes that were
listed in the article on "Medical Misrepresentation" that was discussed here
not too long ago, the curve in his spine might also have been visible, but
then again it may not. One of the websites on scoliosis that I posted a
month or so ago showed a picture of the test for the condition - a doctor
gets the individual to bend forward, which highlights the unevenness of the
shoulders. So, I would suppose from that that you can't always detect the
uneven shoulders, let alone the curve of the spine, if the person is
standing (or kneeling) with their back straight. Thinking of scoliosis
sufferers like Elizabeth Taylor and Usain Bolt, there is no reason that I
can see that Richard might have had scoliosis and also cut a very handsome
figure overall. I think of him, during the plummy days at Middleham, as
being quite dashing, quick and lithe, scoliosis or no.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes it's true Ishita that Richard is described/called small in this book...and I did feel very uncomfortable with it but this book was written in the 1930s and is a little dated here and there. Having said that, this is only a very tiny annoyance when the rest of the book is so good. I hope that you can cast aside these tiny irritations and enjoy the rest of the book...Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I got this one from Albris. I haven't gone far but the author does called Richard, "an ape" and a dwarf at two different situations...... Maybe that's the reason I did not get far. Will give it another go!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:45 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> > Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is on Amazon for a shade under £30. Bit expensive.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> > Subject: UNDER THE HOG
> >
> >
> > Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
> > >
> > > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol,
> > > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > > Ishita
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Eileen, I will definitely give it another go!!

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> Yes it's true Ishita that Richard is described/called small in this book...and I did feel very uncomfortable with it but this book was written in the 1930s and is a little dated here and there. Having said that, this is only a very tiny annoyance when the rest of the book is so good. I hope that you can cast aside these tiny irritations and enjoy the rest of the book...Eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I got this one from Albris. I haven't gone far but the author does called Richard, "an ape" and a dwarf at two different situations...... Maybe that's the reason I did not get far. Will give it another go!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2012, at 4:45 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Well you've convinced me to read it - only problem is the paperback is on Amazon for a shade under £30. Bit expensive.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: EileenB <b.eileen25@...>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2012, 15:56
> > > Subject: UNDER THE HOG
> > >
> > >
> > > Maire I absolutely adore Under the Hog....it is a tad dated in places as it was written in the 30s and Richard is described as small. But other than that loved it...What about the scenes with Clarence featured in them....when Richard is trying to get him it divulge where Anne is hidden! .... Also the scene where Richard and Bucks are with young Edward after meeting up with him at Stoney Stratford....Edwards petulance and strop...It makes you wonder was it really like that? Probably not as they were in actual fact doodling with their signatures which presents a more relaxed picture...Still this book was recommended as one of the best Ricardian novels ever which I why I bought it...And I certainly enjoyed it as much as my two other favourites Sunne in Splendour and We Speak No Treason... Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am reading "Dickon" and struggling through. Is anyone here a fan of "The White Boar" or "Under the Hog"? I think they are both really excellent. Not as romantic as the other novels but captures Richard's world very well.
> > > >
> > > > What is it about this man that makes so many writers create such fine works of fiction? Maire.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol,
> > > > > I read both Dickon and the The Thwarted Queen and I am not enamored with either!
> > > > > Just got this book My Lords Richard by Margaret Richardson and like it so far. The narrator is Anne Neville and we see Richard Neville and Richard Gloucester through her eyes. You might want to check it out.
> > > > > Ishita
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 30, 2012, at 10:38 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol I got the Deceivers from an Amazon dealer...expensive I thought at £20 + postage for a secondhand copy but in good condition. But Im pleased with it plus it is signed by the author to someone called Jackie at Middleham....which is nice. Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Eileen. I'll keep watching Amazon, then. Meanwhile, I'm reading Marjorie Bowen's "Dickon," but it's not to my taste--not just the devil figure, but a number of improbabilities (such as Richard and George not being close as boys and Richard going to visit King Henry in the Tower) and a number of errors, mostly in chronology. I've also finished a very strange novel about Lady "Cecylee" Neville called "The Thwarted Queen." If you read it, don't read the preface, which gives away an important plot point. The author has an oddly favorable view of Richard for someone who cites Alison Weir as a source and a very odd mixture of narrative styles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol, who needs to find something *new* and interesting about Richard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oke Doke Carol...I will buy book after Crimbo and then maybe discuss....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ive begun The Deceivers but havent had time in the last couple of days to read it...Its a cracking good book.....Im enjoying it....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're welcome. Where did you find "The Deceivers" again? I can't find an affordable copy anywhere, and apparently it isn't online (probably still under copyright).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip> Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
> some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. <snip>

Carol responds:

Margaret Beaufort was not only present, she carried the queen's train, so if anyone witnessed the anointing, she would have. And yet she seems to have said nothing of any deformity. The only rumors we hear of are later, referring to the disappearance of the "Princes" and to Richard's supposed intention to marry his niece. If the Tudor supporters had any evidence of bodily imperfection, they would have spread that rumor as well (given the connection in the medieval and early Renaissance mind between evil and deformity).

There's no "extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other," only the description by Rous (who also has him being two years in his mother's womb) and the remark by someone in York that he was a "crookback" and buried in a ditch, which simply shows that ugly rumors spread rather quickly after his death. We know that the part about being buried in a ditch is untrue. The "crookback" part could be equally false--or it could be an exaggeration of the one shoulder higher than the other idea, which first appears in Rous. No description written while he was alive gives any indication of deformity or disability though one suggests that he was small and another that he had delicate arms and legs.

Carol

Yes..MB was definitely there..carrying Anne's train.....Put me in mind of that scene from The Vicar of Dibley when Dawn French is dreaming that the man she loves (Richard Armitage) is marrying someone else....She jumps up and sings "It should have been me"...and then knocks both the groom and bride out....Hilarious...I think only UK posters will remember this....Although It might be on UTube...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip> Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
> > some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Margaret Beaufort was not only present, she carried the queen's train, so if anyone witnessed the anointing, she would have. And yet she seems to have said nothing of any deformity. The only rumors we hear of are later, referring to the disappearance of the "Princes" and to Richard's supposed intention to marry his niece. If the Tudor supporters had any evidence of bodily imperfection, they would have spread that rumor as well (given the connection in the medieval and early Renaissance mind between evil and deformity).
>
> There's no "extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other," only the description by Rous (who also has him being two years in his mother's womb) and the remark by someone in York that he was a "crookback" and buried in a ditch, which simply shows that ugly rumors spread rather quickly after his death. We know that the part about being buried in a ditch is untrue. The "crookback" part could be equally false--or it could be an exaggeration of the one shoulder higher than the other idea, which first appears in Rous. No description written while he was alive gives any indication of deformity or disability though one suggests that he was small and another that he had delicate arms and legs.
>
> Carol
>

Hi, Carol -

There are pages and pages in Josephine Wilkinson's book considering just
this question, and her conclusion is that the "uneven shoulders" part is
accepted by Rous, Vergil and More; however they cannot agree on which
shoulder was higher. As she notes, only More states that Richard had a
withered arm. It is also significant, I think, that "Master Burton" in the
York City Records, said that 'Kyng Richard was an ypocryte, a crochebake,
and beried in a dike like a dogge.' This is quoted in Wilkinson, and a
couple pages later she continues: "Burton did disparage Richard, for which
he was duly rebuked. It must be said however, that Burton was not reproached
for having called Richard a 'crochebake' but for saying that he had been
buried in a dike like a dog."

Wilkinson also mentions that as recently as a century ago, a child's effigy
at Sheriff Hutton was called 'Little Crumplin.' "This rustic epithet is
believed to allude to his father's alleged hunchback." Wilkinson concludes:
"According to documentary evidence, then, Richard did have some sort of
physical deformity, although respective authors are unable to agree on the
details."



I will leave it at that, not having been a witness myself to Richard,
dressed or undressed <smile> during his lifetime. But I would note that the
observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had
"spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have
resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left."



Regarding the lack of rumours about any bodily deformity - there are at
least two options that I can think of : 1) that the condition was not
readily observable during Richard's lifetime and in any case didn't impair
his activities, and/or 2) it was so well known that it didn't excite
comment. It certainly seems to have been exaggerated by posthumous
descriptions from the Tudor historians. (BTW, for whatever it's worth, I
tend to think that "crookback" could have been a description for someone
suffering from scoliosis, as well as a hunchback. A "crooked spine" in other
words, rather than a "hunched spine," at least in some cases.)



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - <mailto:jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...

or <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought





Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip> Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
> some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may
have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading
tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at
that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period
that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. <snip>

Carol responds:

Margaret Beaufort was not only present, she carried the queen's train, so if
anyone witnessed the anointing, she would have. And yet she seems to have
said nothing of any deformity. The only rumors we hear of are later,
referring to the disappearance of the "Princes" and to Richard's supposed
intention to marry his niece. If the Tudor supporters had any evidence of
bodily imperfection, they would have spread that rumor as well (given the
connection in the medieval and early Renaissance mind between evil and
deformity).

There's no "extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one
shoulder higher than the other," only the description by Rous (who also has
him being two years in his mother's womb) and the remark by someone in York
that he was a "crookback" and buried in a ditch, which simply shows that
ugly rumors spread rather quickly after his death. We know that the part
about being buried in a ditch is untrue. The "crookback" part could be
equally false--or it could be an exaggeration of the one shoulder higher
than the other idea, which first appears in Rous. No description written
while he was alive gives any indication of deformity or disability though
one suggests that he was small and another that he had delicate arms and
legs.

Carol

Margaret Beaufort held the Queen's train so was very much a part of the ceremony.
And the Abbey was packed, not with Richard supporters necessarily, but with the majority of the nobility who had come to town for the coronation of Edward V.
Rumours that we wouldn't know about? Sorry, but we know of an awful lot of anti-Richard rumours so why anything damaging would also not be on record is very unlikely. Exxtensive testimony about one shoulder higher than the other? Where exactly? You are jumping the gun already on the excavations, as well as doing something nobody should do when studying history, looking back through a modern prism!
Paul

On 2 Dec 2012, at 12:14, Johanne Tournier wrote:

> Hi, Paul -
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 7:23 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
> You wrote -
> I always think of the coronation and how for the anointing he and his queen
> were stripped to the waist for that part of the ceremony. No mention of it
> taking place in private, yet nobody as far as we know mentioned anything out
> of the ordinary about Richard's physique, something the likes of Margaret
> Beaufort would have pounced on had there been anything.
> Paul
>
> [JLT] I still don't have my copy of *The Coronation of Richard III* - and of
> course I'm speculating here a bit - but I'm presuming that the Coronation
> ceremony would not have been open to the public. There would have been a lot
> of people there, but they may have been people who were, in the main,
> favourably disposed to Richard. Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
> some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may
> have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading
> tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at
> that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period
> that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. I would think it likely
> that that would have been quite visible during the coronation ceremony where
> the king and queen are stripped to the waist, if it was visible when he was
> wearing his doublet. If indeed Richard had scoliosis, and I think that's a
> more likely cause of the uneven shoulders than the possible causes that were
> listed in the article on "Medical Misrepresentation" that was discussed here
> not too long ago, the curve in his spine might also have been visible, but
> then again it may not. One of the websites on scoliosis that I posted a
> month or so ago showed a picture of the test for the condition - a doctor
> gets the individual to bend forward, which highlights the unevenness of the
> shoulders. So, I would suppose from that that you can't always detect the
> uneven shoulders, let alone the curve of the spine, if the person is
> standing (or kneeling) with their back straight. Thinking of scoliosis
> sufferers like Elizabeth Taylor and Usain Bolt, there is no reason that I
> can see that Richard might have had scoliosis and also cut a very handsome
> figure overall. I think of him, during the plummy days at Middleham, as
> being quite dashing, quick and lithe, scoliosis or no.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
> - Jesus of Nazareth
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Johanne Tournier wrote:

> There are pages and pages in Josephine Wilkinson's book considering just this question, and her conclusion is that the "uneven shoulders" part is accepted by Rous, Vergil and More; however they cannot agree on which shoulder was higher. As she notes, only More states that Richard had a withered arm.

Carol responds:

I started to read Wilkinson but couldn't stand her. She actually discusses the possibility that Richard was born with teeth and hair to his shoulders and the supposed implications of such a birth when it's obvious, to me at least, that the hair and teeth are characteristics that a (monstrous) child would have had if it could really have been "two years in its mother's womb." It would have been the equivalent of an eleven-month-old toddler in size in appearance (but not, of course, physical and mental development.) And the fact that considers Vergil and More's "testimony" on this topic (which would have been based on Rous's, perhaps augmented by Tudor exaggeration, simply makes me want to throw up my hands in despair and frustration. I can't remember whether I read on after that point, but Wilkinson definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. (Of course, Vergil and More couldn't agree on which shoulder was higher; they never saw Richard. BTW, More seems to have had one shoulder higher than the other, so maybe it was all a joke to him.) But at least Wilkinson concedes that the withered arm was More's invention!

Johanne wrote:
> It is also significant, I think, that "Master Burton" in the York City Records, said that 'Kyng Richard was an ypocryte, a crochebake,
and beried in a dike like a dogge.' This is quoted in Wilkinson, and a
> couple pages later she continues: "Burton did disparage Richard, for which he was duly rebuked. It must be said however, that Burton was not reproached for having called Richard a 'crochebake' but for saying that he had been buried in a dike like a dog."

Carol responds:

Yes, I mentioned that story earlier without the detail. It's obvious to me that Burton was just repeating rumors. We know that Richard was not a hypocrite and that he wasn't buried in a ditch. Why should we believe the "crookback" rumor if we discard the others? In any case, even if he had scoliosis, as the skeleton *seems* to indicate, that wouldn't give him a visible "crookback." Why Burton was corrected only for the buried in a ditch comment, I don't know. Maybe that was the only rumor that the men of York could disprove. (It's odd, though, that Richard's erstwhile supporters didn't also reprimand Burton for calling him a hypocrite when he had treated the city so well and they had lately mourned the king who had reigned mercifully upon them. It seems to me that we're not getting the whole story here, and, again, it conflicts with the descriptions from Richard's lifetime. For a pro-Ricardian author, Wilkinson sounds suspiciously like Desmond Seward on these two points.

Johanne:
> Wilkinson also mentions that as recently as a century ago, a child's effigy at Sheriff Hutton was called 'Little Crumplin.' "This rustic epithet is believed to allude to his father's alleged hunchback." Wilkinson concludes: "According to documentary evidence, then, Richard did have some sort of physical deformity, although respective authors are unable to agree on the details."
>
Carol:

Sorry, I don't understand what some child's effigy and a rustic epithet have to do with Richard III. Wilkinson seems to me to be grasping at straws here.

Johanne:
> I will leave it at that, not having been a witness myself to Richard, dressed or undressed <smile> during his lifetime. But I would note that the observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left." <snip>

Carol:

Yes, I've read those remarks (which, alas, have been misinterpreted by many people as meaning that the hunchback legend is true). But archaeologists are not experts on spinal deformities and could be seeing what they expect to see just as the examiners of the bones in the urn saw what they expected to see. I do believe that the skeleton is Richard's, and certainly we can't question the battle injuries, but I'll wait for the word of an orthopedic surgeon before I fully accept the diagnosis of scoliosis. I'm open either to the possibility, of course. I just don't disagree with Wilkinson that Richard was known to have a raised shoulder and or a "crookback" during his lifetime.

We may have to agree to disagree on this--and on our view of Wilkinson.

Carol

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

[snip]

I would note that the
> observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had
> "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have
> resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left."
>
>
>
> Regarding the lack of rumours about any bodily deformity - there are at
> least two options that I can think of : 1) that the condition was not
> readily observable during Richard's lifetime and in any case didn't impair
> his activities, and/or 2) it was so well known that it didn't excite
> comment.


A corollary to the second point may be that scoliosis of some degree was a pretty common condition (apparently it is even today) plus everyone knew Richard had the condition, so there was nothing remarkable about how he looked with his shirt off, thus no one remarked on it.

In fact, is there any physical description attached to that ceremony at all? Did anyone writing about it at the time comment on hair color of either Richard or Anne, or their complexions, or whether Anne was the taller, or whatever? In that case, absence of comment can't be taken as proof of absence of scoliosis, to twist the cliche about absence of proof and proof of absence.

I don't recall that we get much in the way of physical description of anyone in this era.

Katy

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>.
>
> Carol says:
>
> I started to read Wilkinson but couldn't stand her. She actually discusses the possibility that Richard was born with teeth and hair to his shoulders and the supposed implications of such a birth when it's obvious, to me at least, that the hair and teeth are characteristics that a (monstrous) child would have had if it could really have been "two years in its mother's womb." It would have been the equivalent of an eleven-month-old toddler in size in appearance (but not, of course, physical and mental development.)

Katy says:

I've thought about that bizarre description of neonatal Richard, and there just possibly be a grain of truth in the oyster of exaggeration. (More, characteristically, carried it even further.)

Cecily was up in the north, away from the eyes of most spies..er...commentators. She could have been pregnant, miscarried, and gotten pregnant again (with Richard) fairly quickly. and between observations. We know that she produced Edmund quite soon after Edward, after all. Possibly someone seeing her (especially a man, as all these accounts come from) would think "Good grief, is she still pregnant?"

Secondly, premature infants of about seven months gestation are often born covered with soft hair called lanugo, which is soon shed.

Thirdly, I was born with two teeth. I wasn't premature, however.

Katy

Katy wrote:
>
> I've thought about that bizarre description of neonatal Richard, and there just possibly be a grain of truth in the oyster of exaggeration. (More, characteristically, carried it even further.)
>
> Cecily was up in the north, away from the eyes of most spies..er...commentators. She could have been pregnant, miscarried, and gotten pregnant again (with Richard) fairly quickly. and between observations. We know that she produced Edmund quite soon after Edward, after all. Possibly someone seeing her (especially a man, as all these accounts come from) would think "Good grief, is she still pregnant?"
>
> Secondly, premature infants of about seven months gestation are often born covered with soft hair called lanugo, which is soon shed.
>
> Thirdly, I was born with two teeth. I wasn't premature, however.
>
> Katy
>
Carol responds:

My impression is that Rous is suggesting that Richard was born with a full set of teeth (to match the hair to his shoulders appropriate to a twenty-month fetus--not at all the same thing as lanugo). Even Rous would know that a twenty-month gestation was not only unnatural (which is why he suggested it--to make Richard monstrous from birth) but impossible. (Note More's ironic comment that either nature changed her ways for this one birth or men exaggerated out of hatred. I'm sure that he knew as well as we do which was true.)

Regarding your idea of the apparent twenty-month pregnancy, Richard was born after Thomas, whose birth date is uncertain (Wikipedia gives it as 1450 or 1451). If he was born at any time in either year, even as late as December 1451, Cecily would have had time to regain her (presumably matronly) figure before she began to show again at around three months pregnant with Richard. Assuming a nine-month pregnancy, she would have become pregnant in early January of 1452 and would have started showing in early to mid-April. If he was premature, she would have started showing even later. So, ingenious theory, but I don't think it pans out. And I doubt that Rous, a Neville retainer, was anywhere near Fotheringhay, and even if he was, I doubt that he, a presumably celibate priest, was paying any attention to female matters like pregnancies.

Rous is occasionally useful, for example when he discusses Richard's progress (though I wonder if he was mistaken about Edward of Middleham's age being only seven). But when he's casting aspersions on Richard's birth, I think we can and should dismiss him.

Carol

Carol, I agree. Loathed Wilkinson's book. So glad she didn't get part two published. YET!!!
Paul

On 2 Dec 2012, at 21:21, justcarol67 wrote:

> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
>> There are pages and pages in Josephine Wilkinson's book considering just this question, and her conclusion is that the "uneven shoulders" part is accepted by Rous, Vergil and More; however they cannot agree on which shoulder was higher. As she notes, only More states that Richard had a withered arm.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I started to read Wilkinson but couldn't stand her. She actually discusses the possibility that Richard was born with teeth and hair to his shoulders and the supposed implications of such a birth when it's obvious, to me at least, that the hair and teeth are characteristics that a (monstrous) child would have had if it could really have been "two years in its mother's womb." It would have been the equivalent of an eleven-month-old toddler in size in appearance (but not, of course, physical and mental development.) And the fact that considers Vergil and More's "testimony" on this topic (which would have been based on Rous's, perhaps augmented by Tudor exaggeration, simply makes me want to throw up my hands in despair and frustration. I can't remember whether I read on after that point, but Wilkinson definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. (Of course, Vergil and More couldn't agree on which shoulder was higher; they never saw Richard. BTW, More seems to have had one shoulder higher than the other, so maybe it was all a joke to him.) But at least Wilkinson concedes that the withered arm was More's invention!
>
> Johanne wrote:
>> It is also significant, I think, that "Master Burton" in the York City Records, said that 'Kyng Richard was an ypocryte, a crochebake,
> and beried in a dike like a dogge.' This is quoted in Wilkinson, and a
>> couple pages later she continues: "Burton did disparage Richard, for which he was duly rebuked. It must be said however, that Burton was not reproached for having called Richard a 'crochebake' but for saying that he had been buried in a dike like a dog."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, I mentioned that story earlier without the detail. It's obvious to me that Burton was just repeating rumors. We know that Richard was not a hypocrite and that he wasn't buried in a ditch. Why should we believe the "crookback" rumor if we discard the others? In any case, even if he had scoliosis, as the skeleton *seems* to indicate, that wouldn't give him a visible "crookback." Why Burton was corrected only for the buried in a ditch comment, I don't know. Maybe that was the only rumor that the men of York could disprove. (It's odd, though, that Richard's erstwhile supporters didn't also reprimand Burton for calling him a hypocrite when he had treated the city so well and they had lately mourned the king who had reigned mercifully upon them. It seems to me that we're not getting the whole story here, and, again, it conflicts with the descriptions from Richard's lifetime. For a pro-Ricardian author, Wilkinson sounds suspiciously like Desmond Seward on these two points.
>
> Johanne:
>> Wilkinson also mentions that as recently as a century ago, a child's effigy at Sheriff Hutton was called 'Little Crumplin.' "This rustic epithet is believed to allude to his father's alleged hunchback." Wilkinson concludes: "According to documentary evidence, then, Richard did have some sort of physical deformity, although respective authors are unable to agree on the details."
>>
> Carol:
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what some child's effigy and a rustic epithet have to do with Richard III. Wilkinson seems to me to be grasping at straws here.
>
> Johanne:
>> I will leave it at that, not having been a witness myself to Richard, dressed or undressed <smile> during his lifetime. But I would note that the observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left." <snip>
>
> Carol:
>
> Yes, I've read those remarks (which, alas, have been misinterpreted by many people as meaning that the hunchback legend is true). But archaeologists are not experts on spinal deformities and could be seeing what they expect to see just as the examiners of the bones in the urn saw what they expected to see. I do believe that the skeleton is Richard's, and certainly we can't question the battle injuries, but I'll wait for the word of an orthopedic surgeon before I fully accept the diagnosis of scoliosis. I'm open either to the possibility, of course. I just don't disagree with Wilkinson that Richard was known to have a raised shoulder and or a "crookback" during his lifetime.
>
> We may have to agree to disagree on this--and on our view of Wilkinson.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Dear Paul -



I don't understand what is to "loathe" about Wilkinson's book. What I am
*enjoying* is that she is giving me information about aspects of Richard's
life and training that I have not found elsewhere. She does attempt, in good
scholarly fashion, to present all sides of the various arguments. But there
is no doubt that she is on Richard's side. She writes in part in the
Preface:



" . . . there is something fascinating about Richard III. He is arguably the
most intriguing character in English history. Few others have possessed the
ability to polarize opinion in the way he does. Few have engendered so much
hatred - or so much devotion - as Richard has.



"Richard was a deeply pious man and, indeed, this work, and my commission to
write it, grew out of a study of Richard's spiritual beliefs and religious
activities. Richard was also passionate about military affairs; he loved
books, clothes, jewellery, colour, pomp and music, and he maintained high
moral standards. He was also the father of at least two illegitimate
children; he was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded murder.
Richard III is a paradox and an enigma. He and his history have long been
hidden beneath a cloud of hostility. Such hostility derives from two
sources: southern anger at his 'tyranny' and Tudor enmity. Moreover, it is
not confined to the era in which it originated, but persists into the
present day.



"Modern scholarship continues to divide itself between the traditionalist
view of Richard and that of the revisionists. It is inevitable that, at some
point, the Ricardian scholar will be asked which 'side' he or she is on.
Their answers are often met with derision or surprise, as though they ought
to 'know better.' It does not have to be that way. Richard's story is as
complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in terms of simply good
or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in which he found
himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the circumstances of
the house into which he was born. Its history and its perceived place in the
succession to the throne of England and France and the Lordship of Ireland
were enormously influential, as were the activities of his father;
especially the activities of his father. Then there is Richard the man. He
had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed in his actions, the
faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom he appealed, the
charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear them expressed
most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate church at
Middleham and in his Act of Settlement.



"To hear Richard, and to understand him, it is necessary to return to the
beginning, for before Richard was a king he was a man and before that a boy,
born into a family whose thoughts and ideals, background and outlook he
engaged with, embraced or rejected. His family influenced him as he did it,
and it is here, with his parents, his sisters and his brothers, cocooned
within the history and the heritage of the House of York that we must first
encounter Richard Plantagenet, future King of England. Only when all these
factors are brought to the fore will we be able, perhaps, to see Richard
through a glass less darkly."



The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a lot
of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV for
example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the
evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw,
but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named
Blaybourne (sp?).



Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a Knight
of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the books that
Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you recall, the
very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the book
*Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a layered
impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the Late Middle
Ages.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
Bale
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought





Carol, I agree. Loathed Wilkinson's book. So glad she didn't get part two
published. YET!!!
Paul


.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmx
jNmkwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQ1MzA3OTQ-> New Photos 1


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDBkZTF0B
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDUzMDc5NA--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYzlqaTM3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0NTMwNzk0>
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
=20524/stime=1354530794/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>

Carol earlier:
>
<snip>
I just don't disagree with Wilkinson that Richard was known to have a raised shoulder and or a "crookback" during his lifetime.

Carol again:

Ergh. I meant "don't agree," of course.

Carol

Johanne: I'm glad you liked her book since I just ordered it!

In her intro, she brings up Richard's illegitimate children, Kate (?) and John - I guess to call him out on his hypocrisy or general evil, lol. I've noticed that several recent historians have brought up his kids. Richard acknowledged these children, and according to most historians, they were born prior to his marriage. If he had ignored them and left them in poverty, we probably would not have known of their existence and Richard would not be accused of "hypocrisy." In other words, he can't win for losing!

I'm sure that as Richard aged, he matured like most people. And he may have drawn closer to his faith. I, for one, salute him for taking care of these kids. Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Paul -
>
>
>
> I don't understand what is to "loathe" about Wilkinson's book. What I am
> *enjoying* is that she is giving me information about aspects of Richard's
> life and training that I have not found elsewhere. She does attempt, in good
> scholarly fashion, to present all sides of the various arguments. But there
> is no doubt that she is on Richard's side. She writes in part in the
> Preface:
>
>
>
> " . . . there is something fascinating about Richard III. He is arguably the
> most intriguing character in English history. Few others have possessed the
> ability to polarize opinion in the way he does. Few have engendered so much
> hatred - or so much devotion - as Richard has.
>
>
>
> "Richard was a deeply pious man and, indeed, this work, and my commission to
> write it, grew out of a study of Richard's spiritual beliefs and religious
> activities. Richard was also passionate about military affairs; he loved
> books, clothes, jewellery, colour, pomp and music, and he maintained high
> moral standards. He was also the father of at least two illegitimate
> children; he was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded murder.
> Richard III is a paradox and an enigma. He and his history have long been
> hidden beneath a cloud of hostility. Such hostility derives from two
> sources: southern anger at his 'tyranny' and Tudor enmity. Moreover, it is
> not confined to the era in which it originated, but persists into the
> present day.
>
>
>
> "Modern scholarship continues to divide itself between the traditionalist
> view of Richard and that of the revisionists. It is inevitable that, at some
> point, the Ricardian scholar will be asked which 'side' he or she is on.
> Their answers are often met with derision or surprise, as though they ought
> to 'know better.' It does not have to be that way. Richard's story is as
> complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in terms of simply good
> or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in which he found
> himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the circumstances of
> the house into which he was born. Its history and its perceived place in the
> succession to the throne of England and France and the Lordship of Ireland
> were enormously influential, as were the activities of his father;
> especially the activities of his father. Then there is Richard the man. He
> had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed in his actions, the
> faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom he appealed, the
> charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear them expressed
> most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate church at
> Middleham and in his Act of Settlement.
>
>
>
> "To hear Richard, and to understand him, it is necessary to return to the
> beginning, for before Richard was a king he was a man and before that a boy,
> born into a family whose thoughts and ideals, background and outlook he
> engaged with, embraced or rejected. His family influenced him as he did it,
> and it is here, with his parents, his sisters and his brothers, cocooned
> within the history and the heritage of the House of York that we must first
> encounter Richard Plantagenet, future King of England. Only when all these
> factors are brought to the fore will we be able, perhaps, to see Richard
> through a glass less darkly."
>
>
>
> The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a lot
> of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV for
> example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the
> evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw,
> but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named
> Blaybourne (sp?).
>
>
>
> Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a Knight
> of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the books that
> Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you recall, the
> very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the book
> *Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a layered
> impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the Late Middle
> Ages.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:33 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
>
>
>
>
> Carol, I agree. Loathed Wilkinson's book. So glad she didn't get part two
> published. YET!!!
> Paul
>
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmx
> jNmkwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQ1MzA3OTQ-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDBkZTF0B
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDUzMDc5NA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYzlqaTM3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0NTMwNzk0>
> 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
> =20524/stime=1354530794/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Johanne quoted Wilkinson as saying:
> "Richard <snip> was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded murder. <snip>

Carol responds:

Just wondering if you agree with this statement. Hastings's execution, based on what little we know about it, appears to have been ordered in a moment of uncontrollable rage, the very opposite of cold-blooded murder. The executions of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey occurred after a trial under the Earl of Northumberland and Rous, a fact that too many biographers overlook or choose to ignore. Unless she believes that he killed Henry VI in person (as opposed to delivering the orders as Constable of England as he may have done) or ordered the murder of his nephews, I don't see where cold-blooded murder comes in.

Wilkinson again:
"Richard's story is as complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in terms of simply good or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in which he found himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the circumstances of the house into which he was born. Its history and its perceived place in the succession to the throne of England and France and the Lordship of Ireland were enormously influential, as were the activities of his father; especially the activities of his father. Then there is Richard the man. He had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed in his actions, the faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom he appealed, the charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear them expressed most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate church at Middleham and in his Act of Settlement."

Carol responds:

This part I have no objection to, but I have yet to see a biography of Richard that didn't take a similar view. Even those hostile to Richard, such as Desmond Seward, think that he was shaped by events around him, particularly the deaths of his father and his brother Edmund when he was only eight.

Johanne:
> The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a lot of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV for example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw, but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named Blaybourne (sp?).
>
Carol responds:

She's hardly the first to do so. Louis XI used to call Edward "Blaybourne" as an insult. There's even a novel about Cecily Neville, "Thwarted Queen," based on that premise.

Johanne:
> Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a Knight of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the books that Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you recall, the very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the book *Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a layered impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the Late Middle Ages.

Carol responds:

Kendall includes a very detailed description of the induction of a Knight of the Bath from Richard's perspective (admittedly, he doesn't do the same for the Knight of the Garter). There's a list of Richard's books, including the "I have desired it so much" motto, on the American Richard III site in the discussion of the horribly named "To Prove a Villain" exhibit: http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html According to the commentary, that motto was "in a collection that includes stories from Chaucer, Lydgate, an English translation of the Old Testament and the romance 'Ipomedon.' (Longleat House Ms. 257)," not necessarily in the margins of "Ipomedon" itself (though that may be accurate--I don't know). Annd Sutton and Livia Fuchs have written a whole book on the subject, "Richard III's Books: Ideal and Reality in the Life of a Medieval Prince." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750914068/richariiisociety I suspect that it's the source from which Wilkinson obtained this information.

At any rate, I started Wilkinson's book with high hopes, but I found nothing new in it and several passages that made me dislike her, notably her discussion of Rous's absurd description of his birth as having some basis in truth. The moment we read "two years in his mother's womb," it ought to be clear that the whole thing is baseless.

I understand quite clearly why Paul loathes the book. I read an excerpt online and was not at all tempted to buy it. I'm not even sure that I finished the excerpt.

Carol

And why does she call him "belligerent"? He was, supposedly, not some loudmouth like his brother, George. Unless she means it in the modern sense of warfare; we now call call people who fight wars "belligerents."

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne quoted Wilkinson as saying:
> > "Richard <snip> was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded murder. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Just wondering if you agree with this statement. Hastings's execution, based on what little we know about it, appears to have been ordered in a moment of uncontrollable rage, the very opposite of cold-blooded murder. The executions of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey occurred after a trial under the Earl of Northumberland and Rous, a fact that too many biographers overlook or choose to ignore. Unless she believes that he killed Henry VI in person (as opposed to delivering the orders as Constable of England as he may have done) or ordered the murder of his nephews, I don't see where cold-blooded murder comes in.
>
> Wilkinson again:
> "Richard's story is as complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in terms of simply good or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in which he found himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the circumstances of the house into which he was born. Its history and its perceived place in the succession to the throne of England and France and the Lordship of Ireland were enormously influential, as were the activities of his father; especially the activities of his father. Then there is Richard the man. He had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed in his actions, the faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom he appealed, the charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear them expressed most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate church at Middleham and in his Act of Settlement."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> This part I have no objection to, but I have yet to see a biography of Richard that didn't take a similar view. Even those hostile to Richard, such as Desmond Seward, think that he was shaped by events around him, particularly the deaths of his father and his brother Edmund when he was only eight.
>
> Johanne:
> > The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a lot of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV for example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw, but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named Blaybourne (sp?).
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> She's hardly the first to do so. Louis XI used to call Edward "Blaybourne" as an insult. There's even a novel about Cecily Neville, "Thwarted Queen," based on that premise.
>
> Johanne:
> > Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a Knight of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the books that Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you recall, the very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the book *Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a layered impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the Late Middle Ages.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Kendall includes a very detailed description of the induction of a Knight of the Bath from Richard's perspective (admittedly, he doesn't do the same for the Knight of the Garter). There's a list of Richard's books, including the "I have desired it so much" motto, on the American Richard III site in the discussion of the horribly named "To Prove a Villain" exhibit: http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html According to the commentary, that motto was "in a collection that includes stories from Chaucer, Lydgate, an English translation of the Old Testament and the romance 'Ipomedon.' (Longleat House Ms. 257)," not necessarily in the margins of "Ipomedon" itself (though that may be accurate--I don't know). Annd Sutton and Livia Fuchs have written a whole book on the subject, "Richard III's Books: Ideal and Reality in the Life of a Medieval Prince." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750914068/richariiisociety I suspect that it's the source from which Wilkinson obtained this information.
>
> At any rate, I started Wilkinson's book with high hopes, but I found nothing new in it and several passages that made me dislike her, notably her discussion of Rous's absurd description of his birth as having some basis in truth. The moment we read "two years in his mother's womb," it ought to be clear that the whole thing is baseless.
>
> I understand quite clearly why Paul loathes the book. I read an excerpt online and was not at all tempted to buy it. I'm not even sure that I finished the excerpt.
>
> Carol
>

Maire wrote:
>
> And why does she [Wilkinson] call him "belligerent"? He was, supposedly, not some loudmouth like his brother, George. Unless she means it in the modern sense of warfare; we now call call people who fight wars "belligerents."

Carol responds:

Maybe because he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny on principle instead of lining his pockets like Edward, Hastings, Morton, et al>? (Talk about hypocrisy--Hastings supposedly wanted his money in his sleeve so he wouldn't be seen carrying a purse of French gold!). But the French feared the Duke of Gloucester from that point forward, unhappily for him when he became king. That may be where More got the idea that he was "warlie," too. Poor Richard. Even his most honorable actions come back to slap him in the face.

Carol

Thanks, Carol. I'm now going to read up on this treaty. I'm still educating myself in Richard's history and still have many holes in my knowledge. Dead at 32 but he left so much of his story! Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Maire wrote:
> >
> > And why does she [Wilkinson] call him "belligerent"? He was, supposedly, not some loudmouth like his brother, George. Unless she means it in the modern sense of warfare; we now call call people who fight wars "belligerents."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Maybe because he opposed the Treaty of Picquigny on principle instead of lining his pockets like Edward, Hastings, Morton, et al>? (Talk about hypocrisy--Hastings supposedly wanted his money in his sleeve so he wouldn't be seen carrying a purse of French gold!). But the French feared the Duke of Gloucester from that point forward, unhappily for him when he became king. That may be where More got the idea that he was "warlie," too. Poor Richard. Even his most honorable actions come back to slap him in the face.
>
> Carol
>

Regarding scoliosis, perhaps it would help to know that the first thing a physician does to test for the condition is ask the patient to bend over at the waist, so he/she can see the curve of the spine.

It's doubtful the curvature of Richard's spine would be visible when he was kneeling, naked to the waist, at the altar. Unless the archbishop asked him to bend over and touch his toes...which sounds like the beginning of a Monty Python sketch.

~Wednesday

Hi, Weds -

I did write just that a few days ago. Do you think anyone was paying any
attention?



Johanne



Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:34 PM
To:
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought





Regarding scoliosis, perhaps it would help to know that the first thing a
physician does to test for the condition is ask the patient to bend over at
the waist, so he/she can see the curve of the spine.

It's doubtful the curvature of Richard's spine would be visible when he was
kneeling, naked to the waist, at the altar. Unless the archbishop asked him
to bend over and touch his toes...which sounds like the beginning of a Monty
Python sketch.

~Wednesday

Hi, Katy!



Agree with your thoughts. I was thinking of the thing about Richard being
"short" or "small" - there are very few descriptions even of his height. Von
Poppelau writes that Richard was "three fingers taller" than himself, which
isn't much of a guide, as he too may have been short. And that Scottish
ambassador who is quoted in a few places wrote that Richard "had the
greatest mind in the smallest body" that he had ever encountered
(paraphrasing).



I would recommend this - look over the Society of Antiquaries portrait
collection - they have a whole series of those portraits in the frames with
the round arched tops, including Edward IV, Henry VII, and some guy from
Spain, as well as Richard's. The one of Richard has been calculated to be
the earliest surviving portrait and is believed to be a fairly faithful copy
of the original portrait made during Richard's lifetime. The reason I urge
studying the other portraits along with Richard's is that when you look at
all of them you will conclude that each is a fairly faithful representation
of the individual depicted. I have read that it was at that time that the
art of portraiture was just being developed - moving away from the
conventions of the Gothic portraiture that we have seen in manuscript
illumination, where all of the figures are more or less stock characters. In
those cases, you could take an illustration of the Coronation of Edward IV
and call it the Coronation of Richard III or Henry VII, and it would be much
the same. It makes me wonder if this was done in some of the early works
said to be depicting the Tudors - if they were actually created during the
era of the Yorkist kings and renamed when the monarchical winds changed.



My point is that if one looks at the portrait of Richard as a faithful
likeness, one will see a rather pale, sensitive-looking young man,
consistent with descriptions of him that people usually give credence to.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of oregon_katy
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 7:42 PM
To:
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought


--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier
<jltournier60@...> wrote:

[snip]

I would note that the
> observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had
> "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have
> resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left."
>
>
>
> Regarding the lack of rumours about any bodily deformity - there are at
> least two options that I can think of : 1) that the condition was not
> readily observable during Richard's lifetime and in any case didn't impair
> his activities, and/or 2) it was so well known that it didn't excite
> comment.

A corollary to the second point may be that scoliosis of some degree was a
pretty common condition (apparently it is even today) plus everyone knew
Richard had the condition, so there was nothing remarkable about how he
looked with his shirt off, thus no one remarked on it.

In fact, is there any physical description attached to that ceremony at all?
Did anyone writing about it at the time comment on hair color of either
Richard or Anne, or their complexions, or whether Anne was the taller, or
whatever? In that case, absence of comment can't be taken as proof of
absence of scoliosis, to twist the cliche about absence of proof and proof
of absence.

I don't recall that we get much in the way of physical description of anyone
in this era.

Katy

Dear Carol -

First, I have gone back and reviewed the chapter wherein Wilkinson discusses
Richard's appearance, and I noted she mentioned the claim of 20 months in
his mother's womb is, frankly, impossible. She does discuss the ins and outs
of a lot of the other statements of Richard's appearance; actually a lot of
her discussion seems to be derived from that article that was linked here
recently on "Medical Misrepresentation." As we know, babies being born with
teeth and hair aren't all that uncommon, so I don't see Wilkinson's
consideration of those possibilities being out of the ordinary. Yes, she
discusses Rous, More and Vergil. She also notes eyewitness testimony or
hearsay regarding Richard's lacking any deformity and notes that, better
than a historical chronicle, is "the fact that there were times in Richard's
life when his nake or partially clothed body was seen by other people. Many
of these were public occasions when any deformity would have been obvious
and noted." She does note, however, the problem with an argument from
silence, in cases where the historical record is incomplete.



Regarding Wilkinson's statement that Richard was capable of cold-blooded
murder, I have stated on several occasions and at some length what my
personal belief is. I guess I should say that, having become, in my lights
at least, a Christian, I am far less approving of anyone taking anyone
else's life. To put it another way - if I had to do it over again, perhaps I
would not consider joining the Navy; when I did join I had no moral scruples
about killing in a just war. It would also help me if I knew what specific
instances she is referring to when she makes that statement. Because, you
see, it is possible to view an execution after a fair trial as judicial
murder; yet I am sure that Richard was ahead of many of his contemporaries
in trying to guarantee his subjects a fair trial. Likewise for his killing
in wartime.



I am not giving you a complete answer on every point you have raised. I
really do have to get to work on Martin Luther, which is due by the 11th.
After that, I'm on vacation for a week and don't know if I'll have access to
the Internet. If I do, I'll respond more fully after the 12th, and if I
don't it will likely be the week before Christmas.



Thanks for understanding!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



Secondly,



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:35 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Josephine Wilkinson's *RIII: The
Young King To Be* (was RE:available research pamplets.. a thought)





Johanne quoted Wilkinson as saying:
> "Richard <snip> was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded
murder. <snip>

Carol responds:

Just wondering if you agree with this statement. Hastings's execution, based
on what little we know about it, appears to have been ordered in a moment of
uncontrollable rage, the very opposite of cold-blooded murder. The
executions of Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey occurred after a trial under the Earl
of Northumberland and Rous, a fact that too many biographers overlook or
choose to ignore. Unless she believes that he killed Henry VI in person (as
opposed to delivering the orders as Constable of England as he may have
done) or ordered the murder of his nephews, I don't see where cold-blooded
murder comes in.

Wilkinson again:
"Richard's story is as complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in
terms of simply good or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in
which he found himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the
circumstances of the house into which he was born. Its history and its
perceived place in the succession to the throne of England and France and
the Lordship of Ireland were enormously influential, as were the activities
of his father; especially the activities of his father. Then there is
Richard the man. He had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed
in his actions, the faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom
he appealed, the charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear
them expressed most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate
church at Middleham and in his Act of Settlement."

Carol responds:

This part I have no objection to, but I have yet to see a biography of
Richard that didn't take a similar view. Even those hostile to Richard, such
as Desmond Seward, think that he was shaped by events around him,
particularly the deaths of his father and his brother Edmund when he was
only eight.

Johanne:
> The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a
lot of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV
for example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the
evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw,
but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named
Blaybourne (sp?).
>
Carol responds:

She's hardly the first to do so. Louis XI used to call Edward "Blaybourne"
as an insult. There's even a novel about Cecily Neville, "Thwarted Queen,"
based on that premise.

Johanne:
> Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a
Knight of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the
books that Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you
recall, the very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the
book *Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a
layered impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the
Late Middle Ages.

Carol responds:

Kendall includes a very detailed description of the induction of a Knight of
the Bath from Richard's perspective (admittedly, he doesn't do the same for
the Knight of the Garter). There's a list of Richard's books, including the
"I have desired it so much" motto, on the American Richard III site in the
discussion of the horribly named "To Prove a Villain" exhibit:
http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/bookofprayer.html According to the commentary,
that motto was "in a collection that includes stories from Chaucer, Lydgate,
an English translation of the Old Testament and the romance 'Ipomedon.'
(Longleat House Ms. 257)," not necessarily in the margins of "Ipomedon"
itself (though that may be accurate--I don't know). Annd Sutton and Livia
Fuchs have written a whole book on the subject, "Richard III's Books: Ideal
and Reality in the Life of a Medieval Prince."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0750914068/richariiisociety I suspect
that it's the source from which Wilkinson obtained this information.

At any rate, I started Wilkinson's book with high hopes, but I found nothing
new in it and several passages that made me dislike her, notably her
discussion of Rous's absurd description of his birth as having some basis in
truth. The moment we read "two years in his mother's womb," it ought to be
clear that the whole thing is baseless.

I understand quite clearly why Paul loathes the book. I read an excerpt
online and was not at all tempted to buy it. I'm not even sure that I
finished the excerpt.

Carol

I'm sorry, Johanne...I'm probably the only one who didn't see it. :( Mea culpa.

~Weds

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Weds -
>
> I did write just that a few days ago. Do you think anyone was paying any
> attention?

Johanne Tournier wrote:
<snip>
>
> I am not giving you a complete answer on every point you have raised. I really do have to get to work on Martin Luther, which is due by the 11th. After that, I'm on vacation for a week and don't know if I'll have access to the Internet. If I do, I'll respond more fully after the 12th, and if I don't it will likely be the week before Christmas.
>
>
>
> Thanks for understanding!

Carol responds:

Hi, Johanne. No need to worry about detailed responses to what by Christmastime will be a very old post. Having completed a PhD myself and taught university classes at the same time, I understand that your work on Martin Luther is more important. I should be editing and instead I'm having to research new cars before my dying transmission fails completely.

Good luck with Martin Luther.

Carol

I read it when it first came out (have it somewhere) and I thought it was quite good.  I wouldn't have said it was anti Richard because to be honest, if I had thought so, I'd have stopped reading!
 
Liz


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 3 December 2012, 15:27
Subject: Re: Josephine Wilkinson's *RIII: The Young King To Be* (was RE:available research pamplets.. a thought)

 


Johanne: I'm glad you liked her book since I just ordered it!

In her intro, she brings up Richard's illegitimate children, Kate (?) and John - I guess to call him out on his hypocrisy or general evil, lol. I've noticed that several recent historians have brought up his kids. Richard acknowledged these children, and according to most historians, they were born prior to his marriage. If he had ignored them and left them in poverty, we probably would not have known of their existence and Richard would not be accused of "hypocrisy." In other words, he can't win for losing!

I'm sure that as Richard aged, he matured like most people. And he may have drawn closer to his faith. I, for one, salute him for taking care of these kids. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Paul -
>
>
>
> I don't understand what is to "loathe" about Wilkinson's book. What I am
> *enjoying* is that she is giving me information about aspects of Richard's
> life and training that I have not found elsewhere. She does attempt, in good
> scholarly fashion, to present all sides of the various arguments. But there
> is no doubt that she is on Richard's side. She writes in part in the
> Preface:
>
>
>
> " . . . there is something fascinating about Richard III. He is arguably the
> most intriguing character in English history. Few others have possessed the
> ability to polarize opinion in the way he does. Few have engendered so much
> hatred - or so much devotion - as Richard has.
>
>
>
> "Richard was a deeply pious man and, indeed, this work, and my commission to
> write it, grew out of a study of Richard's spiritual beliefs and religious
> activities. Richard was also passionate about military affairs; he loved
> books, clothes, jewellery, colour, pomp and music, and he maintained high
> moral standards. He was also the father of at least two illegitimate
> children; he was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded murder.
> Richard III is a paradox and an enigma. He and his history have long been
> hidden beneath a cloud of hostility. Such hostility derives from two
> sources: southern anger at his 'tyranny' and Tudor enmity. Moreover, it is
> not confined to the era in which it originated, but persists into the
> present day.
>
>
>
> "Modern scholarship continues to divide itself between the traditionalist
> view of Richard and that of the revisionists. It is inevitable that, at some
> point, the Ricardian scholar will be asked which 'side' he or she is on.
> Their answers are often met with derision or surprise, as though they ought
> to 'know better.' It does not have to be that way. Richard's story is as
> complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in terms of simply good
> or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in which he found
> himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the circumstances of
> the house into which he was born. Its history and its perceived place in the
> succession to the throne of England and France and the Lordship of Ireland
> were enormously influential, as were the activities of his father;
> especially the activities of his father. Then there is Richard the man. He
> had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed in his actions, the
> faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom he appealed, the
> charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear them expressed
> most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate church at
> Middleham and in his Act of Settlement.
>
>
>
> "To hear Richard, and to understand him, it is necessary to return to the
> beginning, for before Richard was a king he was a man and before that a boy,
> born into a family whose thoughts and ideals, background and outlook he
> engaged with, embraced or rejected. His family influenced him as he did it,
> and it is here, with his parents, his sisters and his brothers, cocooned
> within the history and the heritage of the House of York that we must first
> encounter Richard Plantagenet, future King of England. Only when all these
> factors are brought to the fore will we be able, perhaps, to see Richard
> through a glass less darkly."
>
>
>
> The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a lot
> of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV for
> example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the
> evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw,
> but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named
> Blaybourne (sp?).
>
>
>
> Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a Knight
> of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the books that
> Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you recall, the
> very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the book
> *Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a layered
> impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the Late Middle
> Ages.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> 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 Paul Trevor
> Bale
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:33 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
>
>
>
>
> Carol, I agree. Loathed Wilkinson's book. So glad she didn't get part two
> published. YET!!!
> Paul
>
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmx
> jNmkwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQ1MzA3OTQ-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDBkZTF0B
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDUzMDc5NA--> Visit Your Group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYzlqaTM3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0NTMwNzk0>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:mailto:-traditional%40yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:mailto:-digest%40yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:mailto:-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:mailto:ygroupsnotifications%40yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =20524/stime=1354530794/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > However – I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait.


Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.
Marie

When I first heard that the Greyfriars remains were of someone that had scoliosis and would probably have had one shoulder slightly higher than the other but would have still been able to live an active life...I knew that Richard had been found. Rous said that Richard had one shoulder high than the other.....Yes...we know he was a lier but even so this sounds too much of a coincidence...This would never have been a problem had not Shakespeare over-egged the pudding and a shoulder being slightly higher than the other then became a massive hunchback...

We have heard from people on here and even a member of the Greyfriars dig, who has scoliosis that to have scoliosis does not automatically stop someone who has it leading a very active life. Usain Bolt has scoliosis....which I think says it all.

Eileen



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Johanne wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > However – I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait.
>
>
> Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
> As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.
> Marie
>

I totally agree that someone with scoliosis can lead a normal life, however we are fortunate to have early detection and treatment that can offset most major symptoms, however people of all ranks in R3s time had to depend on the knowledge of the church which was limited to herbs and poultices with a little blood letting on the side.
Greek and Arabic medicine had made its way to England but had been mainly lost on the collapse of the Roman Empire
George

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 3, 2012, at 3:57 PM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> When I first heard that the Greyfriars remains were of someone that had scoliosis and would probably have had one shoulder slightly higher than the other but would have still been able to live an active life...I knew that Richard had been found. Rous said that Richard had one shoulder high than the other.....Yes...we know he was a lier but even so this sounds too much of a coincidence...This would never have been a problem had not Shakespeare over-egged the pudding and a shoulder being slightly higher than the other then became a massive hunchback...
>
> We have heard from people on here and even a member of the Greyfriars dig, who has scoliosis that to have scoliosis does not automatically stop someone who has it leading a very active life. Usain Bolt has scoliosis....which I think says it all.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > However  I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait.
> >
> >
> > Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
> > As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.
> > Marie
> >
>
>

Yes...and no. For example, manuscripts from the 11th Century (including Ms. Bodleian
130 Pseudo-Apuleius, Dioscorides, Herbals (extracts); De virtutibus bestarium in arte medicinae at Bury St. Edmunds refer to the use of wild poppy for inducing
sleep and relieving pain. As now, the primary source of these flowers was along the Silk Road.... Like bathing, there was more going on than we've been led to believe....

Judy
 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought


 
I totally agree that someone with scoliosis can lead a normal life, however we are fortunate to have early detection and treatment that can offset most major symptoms, however people of all ranks in R3s time had to depend on the knowledge of the church which was limited to herbs and poultices with a little blood letting on the side.
Greek and Arabic medicine had made its way to England but had been mainly lost on the collapse of the Roman Empire
George

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 3, 2012, at 3:57 PM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:

> When I first heard that the Greyfriars remains were of someone that had scoliosis and would probably have had one shoulder slightly higher than the other but would have still been able to live an active life...I knew that Richard had been found. Rous said that Richard had one shoulder high than the other.....Yes...we know he was a lier but even so this sounds too much of a coincidence...This would never have been a problem had not Shakespeare over-egged the pudding and a shoulder being slightly higher than the other then became a massive hunchback...
>
> We have heard from people on here and even a member of the Greyfriars dig, who has scoliosis that to have scoliosis does not automatically stop someone who has it leading a very active life. Usain Bolt has scoliosis....which I think says it all.
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > However  I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait.
> >
> >
> > Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
> > As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.
> > Marie
> >
>
>

Marie wrote:
>
> Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
> As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.


Carol responds:

We've had this discussion before. IIRC, you see Rous's description as negative spin on possible facts combined with one obvious error. I see it as a lot of small lies combined with one big one that not even a country prelate would believe. I suspect we'll never agree on this particular point.

Carol

No poppy seeds are both available and grown in Europe but not the Opium producing kind we leave this to the Afghanistan farmers as everyone has for millennia.

George

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 3, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> Yes...and no. For example, manuscripts from the 11th Century (including Ms. Bodleian
> 130 Pseudo-Apuleius, Dioscorides, Herbals (extracts); De virtutibus bestarium in arte medicinae at Bury St. Edmunds refer to the use of wild poppy for inducing
> sleep and relieving pain. As now, the primary source of these flowers was along the Silk Road.... Like bathing, there was more going on than we've been led to believe....
>
> Judy
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 3:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought
>
>
>
> I totally agree that someone with scoliosis can lead a normal life, however we are fortunate to have early detection and treatment that can offset most major symptoms, however people of all ranks in R3s time had to depend on the knowledge of the church which was limited to herbs and poultices with a little blood letting on the side.
> Greek and Arabic medicine had made its way to England but had been mainly lost on the collapse of the Roman Empire
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 3:57 PM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> > When I first heard that the Greyfriars remains were of someone that had scoliosis and would probably have had one shoulder slightly higher than the other but would have still been able to live an active life...I knew that Richard had been found. Rous said that Richard had one shoulder high than the other.....Yes...we know he was a lier but even so this sounds too much of a coincidence...This would never have been a problem had not Shakespeare over-egged the pudding and a shoulder being slightly higher than the other then became a massive hunchback...
> >
> > We have heard from people on here and even a member of the Greyfriars dig, who has scoliosis that to have scoliosis does not automatically stop someone who has it leading a very active life. Usain Bolt has scoliosis....which I think says it all.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > However  I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait.
> > >
> > >
> > > Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
> > > As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.
> > > Marie
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The British writer/chef, Nigel Slater, claims in one of his books that he grows opium poppy. He certainly doesn't say he uses opium but he obviously got his hands on some seeds. Maire.

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> No poppy seeds are both available and grown in Europe but not the Opium producing kind we leave this to the Afghanistan farmers as everyone has for millennia.
>
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes...and no. For example, manuscripts from the 11th Century (including Ms. Bodleian
> > 130 Pseudo-Apuleius, Dioscorides, Herbals (extracts); De virtutibus bestarium in arte medicinae at Bury St. Edmunds refer to the use of wild poppy for inducing
> > sleep and relieving pain. As now, the primary source of these flowers was along the Silk Road.... Like bathing, there was more going on than we've been led to believe....
> >
> > Judy
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 3:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought
> >
> >
> >
> > I totally agree that someone with scoliosis can lead a normal life, however we are fortunate to have early detection and treatment that can offset most major symptoms, however people of all ranks in R3s time had to depend on the knowledge of the church which was limited to herbs and poultices with a little blood letting on the side.
> > Greek and Arabic medicine had made its way to England but had been mainly lost on the collapse of the Roman Empire
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Dec 3, 2012, at 3:57 PM, "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
> >
> > > When I first heard that the Greyfriars remains were of someone that had scoliosis and would probably have had one shoulder slightly higher than the other but would have still been able to live an active life...I knew that Richard had been found. Rous said that Richard had one shoulder high than the other.....Yes...we know he was a lier but even so this sounds too much of a coincidence...This would never have been a problem had not Shakespeare over-egged the pudding and a shoulder being slightly higher than the other then became a massive hunchback...
> > >
> > > We have heard from people on here and even a member of the Greyfriars dig, who has scoliosis that to have scoliosis does not automatically stop someone who has it leading a very active life. Usain Bolt has scoliosis....which I think says it all.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Johanne wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > However â€" I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Two years in your mother's womb isn't a physical trait anyone can see in you after birth. Nothing Rous had to say about Richard's physique is particularly alarming when you take away his negative spin on it, and that is why I was inclined to believe it.
> > > > As for the two years in his mother's womb, I have a theory that the silly old codger had misunderstood a Neville family joke - Cecily had been giving brith pretty much annually for a decade, then went almost two years (after Thomas) before producing Richard.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Apparently it's not actually true - they both wore 'shirts'
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I always think of the coronation and how for the anointing he and his queen were stripped to the waist for that part of the ceremony. No mention of it taking place in private, yet nobody as far as we know mentioned anything out of the ordinary about Richard's physique, something the likes of Margaret Beaufort would have pounced on had there been anything.
> Paul
>
>
> On 1 Dec 2012, at 15:23, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> > Johanne wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> >> However – I can't think of anyone that portrays Richard as having scoliosis. Of course it would be Tudorian to depict him as a hunchback, and I can't think of any that portray him in that fashion, either, fortunately. Maybe some of the Alison Weird school of fiction. <grin> Can you think of any that depict Richard as less than perfectly formed? <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Oddly, to me, a lot of novelists and historians have accepted the raised shoulder portion of Rous's description while discarding the rest (two years in his mother's womb, etc.) as patent nonsense--even though no description written while he was alive gives any indication of that particular trait. Sharon Kay Penman has him break his collarbone while he's practicing at the quintain at Warwick's; "The Thwarted Queen" gives him an enlarged right shoulder (like many other knights, appparently) from practicing at the quintain. Interestingly, Kendall makes the same suggestion. I can't recall any others at the moment. (Marjorie Bowen's Dickon appears to be physically perfect and handsome, but small and quiet. Haven't gotten far yet because, as someone else mentioned, the frequent appearances of "Jon" Fogge as the House of York's particular devil are quite annoying.)
> >
> > At least we can be sure that Richard never developed a "wine belly" from too much swan and malmsey!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip> Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
> > some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Margaret Beaufort was not only present, she carried the queen's train, so if anyone witnessed the anointing, she would have. And yet she seems to have said nothing of any deformity. The only rumors we hear of are later, referring to the disappearance of the "Princes" and to Richard's supposed intention to marry his niece. If the Tudor supporters had any evidence of bodily imperfection, they would have spread that rumor as well (given the connection in the medieval and early Renaissance mind between evil and deformity).
>
> There's no "extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other," only the description by Rous (who also has him being two years in his mother's womb) and the remark by someone in York that he was a "crookback" and buried in a ditch, which simply shows that ugly rumors spread rather quickly after his death. We know that the part about being buried in a ditch is untrue. The "crookback" part could be equally false--or it could be an exaggeration of the one shoulder higher than the other idea, which first appears in Rous. No description written while he was alive gives any indication of deformity or disability though one suggests that he was small and another that he had delicate arms and legs.
>
> Carol
>

You wouldn't expect English accounts of any physical imperfections dating from Richard's lifetime, and given the appearance of many of the European royal houses it is not surprising if continental writers tended to steer clear of such comments as well. Besides, Richard's scoliosis would have been quite successfully hidden by his tailor adjusting the padding in his clothes, and he was not totally naked from the waist up at his coronation, just stripped down to his linen.
To my way of thinking the scoliosis of the Greyfriars skeleton, causing raising of the right shoulder, and the nature of the two earliest reports - ie of raised right shoulder and crooked back - seems too much of a coincidence.
Also, the schoolmaster's claim that Richard was buried in a ditch may well be an exaggeration of the facts. According to this month's Ricardian Bulletin, the Greyfriars Warrior, although placed in the most prestigious spot in the church, was lburied without a coffin, squeezed into a small trench dug into the floor which proved was rather too small for the body.
Or do you not think the Greyfriars skeleton is likely to be Richard's?
Marie

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Carol -
>
> There are pages and pages in Josephine Wilkinson's book considering just
> this question, and her conclusion is that the "uneven shoulders" part is
> accepted by Rous, Vergil and More; however they cannot agree on which
> shoulder was higher.

A more prominent left shoulder would have been according to the thought processes of the time, evidence of a "sinister" disposition, and I imagine this is why More transposed the shoulders. If the Greyfriars skeletion is Richard, then Rous - our earliest source - had the correct shoulder raised.
Marie



As she notes, only More states that Richard had a
> withered arm. It is also significant, I think, that "Master Burton" in the
> York City Records, said that 'Kyng Richard was an ypocryte, a crochebake,
> and beried in a dike like a dogge.' This is quoted in Wilkinson, and a
> couple pages later she continues: "Burton did disparage Richard, for which
> he was duly rebuked. It must be said however, that Burton was not reproached
> for having called Richard a 'crochebake' but for saying that he had been
> buried in a dike like a dog."

It's important to remember the context, though. The York city fathers could legitimately (and did) to police seditious talk againmst King Henry, but had no legitimate reason to conmtrol what people said about the late King Richard. So they responded by saying King Henry had had him honorably buried.

>
> Wilkinson also mentions that as recently as a century ago, a child's effigy
> at Sheriff Hutton was called 'Little Crumplin.' "This rustic epithet is
> believed to allude to his father's alleged hunchback." Wilkinson concludes:
> "According to documentary evidence, then, Richard did have some sort of
> physical deformity, although respective authors are unable to agree on the
> details."

I don't see the relevance of the "Little Crumplin" epithet for the Sheriff Hutton burial since its identification as Prince Edward probably came centuries after Richard's death when the story of his deformities was already well established.



>
>
>
> I will leave it at that, not having been a witness myself to Richard,
> dressed or undressed <smile> during his lifetime. But I would note that the
> observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had
> "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have
> resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left."
>
>
>
> Regarding the lack of rumours about any bodily deformity - there are at
> least two options that I can think of : 1) that the condition was not
> readily observable during Richard's lifetime and in any case didn't impair
> his activities, and/or 2) it was so well known that it didn't excite
> comment. It certainly seems to have been exaggerated by posthumous
> descriptions from the Tudor historians. (BTW, for whatever it's worth, I
> tend to think that "crookback" could have been a description for someone
> suffering from scoliosis, as well as a hunchback. A "crooked spine" in other
> words, rather than a "hunched spine," at least in some cases.)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - <mailto:jltournier60@...> jltournier60@...
>
> or <mailto:jltournier@...> jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 2:28 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> <snip> Was MB present? I suppose she would have had
> > some "spies" there - but it's also possible, I would think, that there may
> have been rumours spread that we don't have a record of. Wouldn't spreading
> tales about any "deformity" be likely to get one in a peck of trouble at
> that point? There certainly is pretty extensive testimony from the period
> that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Margaret Beaufort was not only present, she carried the queen's train, so if
> anyone witnessed the anointing, she would have. And yet she seems to have
> said nothing of any deformity. The only rumors we hear of are later,
> referring to the disappearance of the "Princes" and to Richard's supposed
> intention to marry his niece. If the Tudor supporters had any evidence of
> bodily imperfection, they would have spread that rumor as well (given the
> connection in the medieval and early Renaissance mind between evil and
> deformity).
>
> There's no "extensive testimony from the period that Richard had one
> shoulder higher than the other," only the description by Rous (who also has
> him being two years in his mother's womb) and the remark by someone in York
> that he was a "crookback" and buried in a ditch, which simply shows that
> ugly rumors spread rather quickly after his death. We know that the part
> about being buried in a ditch is untrue. The "crookback" part could be
> equally false--or it could be an exaggeration of the one shoulder higher
> than the other idea, which first appears in Rous. No description written
> while he was alive gives any indication of deformity or disability though
> one suggests that he was small and another that he had delicate arms and
> legs.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, Carol, both my children were born with a good head of hair. My son's would have been down to his shoulders if it hadn't stuck straight up in the air. It was also two-tone, mostly dark but with about 1" length of blond tip. My daughter's, on the other hand, was almost black with blond roots.
And I know there is another forum member who was born with teeth - I imagine by the time I get through my backlog of posts I shall probably find one from her on that subject so I'll say no more.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > There are pages and pages in Josephine Wilkinson's book considering just this question, and her conclusion is that the "uneven shoulders" part is accepted by Rous, Vergil and More; however they cannot agree on which shoulder was higher. As she notes, only More states that Richard had a withered arm.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I started to read Wilkinson but couldn't stand her. She actually discusses the possibility that Richard was born with teeth and hair to his shoulders and the supposed implications of such a birth when it's obvious, to me at least, that the hair and teeth are characteristics that a (monstrous) child would have had if it could really have been "two years in its mother's womb." It would have been the equivalent of an eleven-month-old toddler in size in appearance (but not, of course, physical and mental development.) And the fact that considers Vergil and More's "testimony" on this topic (which would have been based on Rous's, perhaps augmented by Tudor exaggeration, simply makes me want to throw up my hands in despair and frustration. I can't remember whether I read on after that point, but Wilkinson definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. (Of course, Vergil and More couldn't agree on which shoulder was higher; they never saw Richard. BTW, More seems to have had one shoulder higher than the other, so maybe it was all a joke to him.) But at least Wilkinson concedes that the withered arm was More's invention!
>
> Johanne wrote:
> > It is also significant, I think, that "Master Burton" in the York City Records, said that 'Kyng Richard was an ypocryte, a crochebake,
> and beried in a dike like a dogge.' This is quoted in Wilkinson, and a
> > couple pages later she continues: "Burton did disparage Richard, for which he was duly rebuked. It must be said however, that Burton was not reproached for having called Richard a 'crochebake' but for saying that he had been buried in a dike like a dog."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, I mentioned that story earlier without the detail. It's obvious to me that Burton was just repeating rumors. We know that Richard was not a hypocrite and that he wasn't buried in a ditch. Why should we believe the "crookback" rumor if we discard the others? In any case, even if he had scoliosis, as the skeleton *seems* to indicate, that wouldn't give him a visible "crookback." Why Burton was corrected only for the buried in a ditch comment, I don't know. Maybe that was the only rumor that the men of York could disprove. (It's odd, though, that Richard's erstwhile supporters didn't also reprimand Burton for calling him a hypocrite when he had treated the city so well and they had lately mourned the king who had reigned mercifully upon them. It seems to me that we're not getting the whole story here, and, again, it conflicts with the descriptions from Richard's lifetime. For a pro-Ricardian author, Wilkinson sounds suspiciously like Desmond Seward on these two points.
>
> Johanne:
> > Wilkinson also mentions that as recently as a century ago, a child's effigy at Sheriff Hutton was called 'Little Crumplin.' "This rustic epithet is believed to allude to his father's alleged hunchback." Wilkinson concludes: "According to documentary evidence, then, Richard did have some sort of physical deformity, although respective authors are unable to agree on the details."
> >
> Carol:
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what some child's effigy and a rustic epithet have to do with Richard III. Wilkinson seems to me to be grasping at straws here.
>
> Johanne:
> > I will leave it at that, not having been a witness myself to Richard, dressed or undressed <smile> during his lifetime. But I would note that the observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left." <snip>
>
> Carol:
>
> Yes, I've read those remarks (which, alas, have been misinterpreted by many people as meaning that the hunchback legend is true). But archaeologists are not experts on spinal deformities and could be seeing what they expect to see just as the examiners of the bones in the urn saw what they expected to see. I do believe that the skeleton is Richard's, and certainly we can't question the battle injuries, but I'll wait for the word of an orthopedic surgeon before I fully accept the diagnosis of scoliosis. I'm open either to the possibility, of course. I just don't disagree with Wilkinson that Richard was known to have a raised shoulder and or a "crookback" during his lifetime.
>
> We may have to agree to disagree on this--and on our view of Wilkinson.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Katy wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about that bizarre description of neonatal Richard, and there just possibly be a grain of truth in the oyster of exaggeration. (More, characteristically, carried it even further.)
> >
> > Cecily was up in the north, away from the eyes of most spies..er...commentators. She could have been pregnant, miscarried, and gotten pregnant again (with Richard) fairly quickly. and between observations. We know that she produced Edmund quite soon after Edward, after all. Possibly someone seeing her (especially a man, as all these accounts come from) would think "Good grief, is she still pregnant?"
> >
> > Secondly, premature infants of about seven months gestation are often born covered with soft hair called lanugo, which is soon shed.
> >
> > Thirdly, I was born with two teeth. I wasn't premature, however.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> My impression is that Rous is suggesting that Richard was born with a full set of teeth (to match the hair to his shoulders appropriate to a twenty-month fetus--not at all the same thing as lanugo).

He doesn't say so.
Marie

Even Rous would know that a twenty-month gestation was not only unnatural (which is why he suggested it--to make Richard monstrous from birth) but impossible. (Note More's ironic comment that either nature changed her ways for this one birth or men exaggerated out of hatred. I'm sure that he knew as well as we do which was true.)
>
> Regarding your idea of the apparent twenty-month pregnancy, Richard was born after Thomas, whose birth date is uncertain (Wikipedia gives it as 1450 or 1451). If he was born at any time in either year, even as late as December 1451, Cecily would have had time to regain her (presumably matronly) figure before she began to show again at around three months pregnant with Richard.

We actually have a good source for Thomas's birth - it was December 1450.
Marie

Assuming a nine-month pregnancy, she would have become pregnant in early January of 1452 and would have started showing in early to mid-April. If he was premature, she would have started showing even later. So, ingenious theory, but I don't think it pans out. And I doubt that Rous, a Neville retainer, was anywhere near Fotheringhay, and even if he was, I doubt that he, a presumably celibate priest, was paying any attention to female matters like pregnancies.

I didn't suggest he was present, only that he picked up talk (which would have been harmless joky talk) at Warwick Castle. We know - also from Rous - that the Countess of Warwick liked to attend women in chuildbirth; we also know that Cecily had stood godmother to Isabel Neville. Therefore it is very likely that the Countess was present at Richard's birth.
I personally think it is likely to have been the signs of apparent maturity - ie the hair and the newborn teeth - taken together with the length of time since Thomas' birth that sparked some wit in the Neville household to suggest he had been gestating for two years.
Marie


>
> Rous is occasionally useful, for example when he discusses Richard's progress (though I wonder if he was mistaken about Edward of Middleham's age being only seven).

Not at all. The Tewkesbury Abbey Chronicle also tells us that Richard's son was born in 1476. This has been overlooked until recent years, unfortunately, because the monks left a blank space for the name, and in the next century some dunce filled it in as George.
Marie

But when he's casting aspersions on Richard's birth, I think we can and should dismiss him.

Like I keep saying, apart from the two-year gestation these are not aspersions if you ignore rous' spin, but not uncommon newborn traits.
Marie

Hear, hear! I'm afraid I found it very plodding and with little new thought or research. I sort of lost interest quite early on when she claimed that St albans had no town walls because the Roman walls had been cannibalised for building. They had indeed, but only because the Roman town had been abandoned - the medieval town was on a different site.
Marie



--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Carol, I agree. Loathed Wilkinson's book. So glad she didn't get part two published. YET!!!
> Paul
>
> On 2 Dec 2012, at 21:21, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> >> There are pages and pages in Josephine Wilkinson's book considering just this question, and her conclusion is that the "uneven shoulders" part is accepted by Rous, Vergil and More; however they cannot agree on which shoulder was higher. As she notes, only More states that Richard had a withered arm.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I started to read Wilkinson but couldn't stand her. She actually discusses the possibility that Richard was born with teeth and hair to his shoulders and the supposed implications of such a birth when it's obvious, to me at least, that the hair and teeth are characteristics that a (monstrous) child would have had if it could really have been "two years in its mother's womb." It would have been the equivalent of an eleven-month-old toddler in size in appearance (but not, of course, physical and mental development.) And the fact that considers Vergil and More's "testimony" on this topic (which would have been based on Rous's, perhaps augmented by Tudor exaggeration, simply makes me want to throw up my hands in despair and frustration. I can't remember whether I read on after that point, but Wilkinson definitely left a bad taste in my mouth. (Of course, Vergil and More couldn't agree on which shoulder was higher; they never saw Richard. BTW, More seems to have had one shoulder higher than the other, so maybe it was all a joke to him.) But at least Wilkinson concedes that the withered arm was More's invention!
> >
> > Johanne wrote:
> >> It is also significant, I think, that "Master Burton" in the York City Records, said that 'Kyng Richard was an ypocryte, a crochebake,
> > and beried in a dike like a dogge.' This is quoted in Wilkinson, and a
> >> couple pages later she continues: "Burton did disparage Richard, for which he was duly rebuked. It must be said however, that Burton was not reproached for having called Richard a 'crochebake' but for saying that he had been buried in a dike like a dog."
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Yes, I mentioned that story earlier without the detail. It's obvious to me that Burton was just repeating rumors. We know that Richard was not a hypocrite and that he wasn't buried in a ditch. Why should we believe the "crookback" rumor if we discard the others? In any case, even if he had scoliosis, as the skeleton *seems* to indicate, that wouldn't give him a visible "crookback." Why Burton was corrected only for the buried in a ditch comment, I don't know. Maybe that was the only rumor that the men of York could disprove. (It's odd, though, that Richard's erstwhile supporters didn't also reprimand Burton for calling him a hypocrite when he had treated the city so well and they had lately mourned the king who had reigned mercifully upon them. It seems to me that we're not getting the whole story here, and, again, it conflicts with the descriptions from Richard's lifetime. For a pro-Ricardian author, Wilkinson sounds suspiciously like Desmond Seward on these two points.
> >
> > Johanne:
> >> Wilkinson also mentions that as recently as a century ago, a child's effigy at Sheriff Hutton was called 'Little Crumplin.' "This rustic epithet is believed to allude to his father's alleged hunchback." Wilkinson concludes: "According to documentary evidence, then, Richard did have some sort of physical deformity, although respective authors are unable to agree on the details."
> >>
> > Carol:
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand what some child's effigy and a rustic epithet have to do with Richard III. Wilkinson seems to me to be grasping at straws here.
> >
> > Johanne:
> >> I will leave it at that, not having been a witness myself to Richard, dressed or undressed <smile> during his lifetime. But I would note that the observation of the skeleton of the Greyfriars Warrior is of a man who had "spinal abnormalities," specifically "severe scoliosis, which would have resulted in his right shoulder being higher than the left." <snip>
> >
> > Carol:
> >
> > Yes, I've read those remarks (which, alas, have been misinterpreted by many people as meaning that the hunchback legend is true). But archaeologists are not experts on spinal deformities and could be seeing what they expect to see just as the examiners of the bones in the urn saw what they expected to see. I do believe that the skeleton is Richard's, and certainly we can't question the battle injuries, but I'll wait for the word of an orthopedic surgeon before I fully accept the diagnosis of scoliosis. I'm open either to the possibility, of course. I just don't disagree with Wilkinson that Richard was known to have a raised shoulder and or a "crookback" during his lifetime.
> >
> > We may have to agree to disagree on this--and on our view of Wilkinson.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I must admit I didn't think it likely Anne was emulating a Page 3 girl ....


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 2:07
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought

 

Apparently it's not actually true - they both wore 'shirts'
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I always think of the coronation and how for the anointing he and his queen were stripped to the waist for that part of the ceremony. No mention of it taking place in private, yet nobody as far as we know mentioned anything out of the ordinary about Richard's physique, something the likes of Margaret Beaufort would have pounced on had there been anything.
> Paul
>
>

They deo seem to have been born before Richard's marriage. Katherine and the earl of Huntingdon seemingly set up home in 1484, suggesting she was probably born in 1470 (people tended to have their daughters wait until they were 14 before they consummated their marriages), and John of Gloucester aka of Pontefract was appointed Captain of Calais. I wonder if John may have been conceived at Pontefract in 1469 when Edward and Richard were there after Edward's release/ escape from Middleham. If so, I can see Edward having had a hand in encouraging the lad to have a bit of fun.
There would be very few guys from the propertied classes who hadn't fathered bastards on girls they couldn't marry. The good ones looked after them, and the bad ones didn't.
Marie

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne: I'm glad you liked her book since I just ordered it!
>
> In her intro, she brings up Richard's illegitimate children, Kate (?) and John - I guess to call him out on his hypocrisy or general evil, lol. I've noticed that several recent historians have brought up his kids. Richard acknowledged these children, and according to most historians, they were born prior to his marriage. If he had ignored them and left them in poverty, we probably would not have known of their existence and Richard would not be accused of "hypocrisy." In other words, he can't win for losing!
>
> I'm sure that as Richard aged, he matured like most people. And he may have drawn closer to his faith. I, for one, salute him for taking care of these kids. Maire.
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Paul -
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't understand what is to "loathe" about Wilkinson's book. What I am
> > *enjoying* is that she is giving me information about aspects of Richard's
> > life and training that I have not found elsewhere. She does attempt, in good
> > scholarly fashion, to present all sides of the various arguments. But there
> > is no doubt that she is on Richard's side. She writes in part in the
> > Preface:
> >
> >
> >
> > " . . . there is something fascinating about Richard III. He is arguably the
> > most intriguing character in English history. Few others have possessed the
> > ability to polarize opinion in the way he does. Few have engendered so much
> > hatred - or so much devotion - as Richard has.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Richard was a deeply pious man and, indeed, this work, and my commission to
> > write it, grew out of a study of Richard's spiritual beliefs and religious
> > activities. Richard was also passionate about military affairs; he loved
> > books, clothes, jewellery, colour, pomp and music, and he maintained high
> > moral standards. He was also the father of at least two illegitimate
> > children; he was belligerent, defiant and capable of cold blooded murder.
> > Richard III is a paradox and an enigma. He and his history have long been
> > hidden beneath a cloud of hostility. Such hostility derives from two
> > sources: southern anger at his 'tyranny' and Tudor enmity. Moreover, it is
> > not confined to the era in which it originated, but persists into the
> > present day.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Modern scholarship continues to divide itself between the traditionalist
> > view of Richard and that of the revisionists. It is inevitable that, at some
> > point, the Ricardian scholar will be asked which 'side' he or she is on.
> > Their answers are often met with derision or surprise, as though they ought
> > to 'know better.' It does not have to be that way. Richard's story is as
> > complex as the man himself, too complex to be seen in terms of simply good
> > or bad. His actions were dictated by the situation in which he found
> > himself, but more than that, much of it was directed by the circumstances of
> > the house into which he was born. Its history and its perceived place in the
> > succession to the throne of England and France and the Lordship of Ireland
> > were enormously influential, as were the activities of his father;
> > especially the activities of his father. Then there is Richard the man. He
> > had thoughts of his own. Echoes of them can be discussed in his actions, the
> > faith he held, the things he owned, the saints to whom he appealed, the
> > charities he supported, the chantries he founded. We hear them expressed
> > most clearly in the statutes he drew up for his collegiate church at
> > Middleham and in his Act of Settlement.
> >
> >
> >
> > "To hear Richard, and to understand him, it is necessary to return to the
> > beginning, for before Richard was a king he was a man and before that a boy,
> > born into a family whose thoughts and ideals, background and outlook he
> > engaged with, embraced or rejected. His family influenced him as he did it,
> > and it is here, with his parents, his sisters and his brothers, cocooned
> > within the history and the heritage of the House of York that we must first
> > encounter Richard Plantagenet, future King of England. Only when all these
> > factors are brought to the fore will we be able, perhaps, to see Richard
> > through a glass less darkly."
> >
> >
> >
> > The book carries through with this aim, and, as I mentioned, includes a lot
> > of detail - the facts surrounding the possible illegitimacy of Edward IV for
> > example - that I haven't read in any detail elsewhere. She presents the
> > evidence but withholds any conclusion that he was in fact illegitimate, btw,
> > but even names the putative father, an English archer in Rouen named
> > Blaybourne (sp?).
> >
> >
> >
> > Besides detailing the rituals that Richard went through to be made a Knight
> > of the Bath and of the Garter, Wilkinson describes more about the books that
> > Richard owned than I have read anywhere else. Including, if you recall, the
> > very touching book describing Richard's marginal notation in the book
> > *Ipomedon.* These things aren't unique, but cumulatively they give a layered
> > impression of all the complexities that made up this king of the Late Middle
> > Ages.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor
> > Bale
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:33 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> > thought
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Carol, I agree. Loathed Wilkinson's book. So glad she didn't get part two
> > published. YET!!!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > .
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYmx
> > jNmkwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> > Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNTQ1MzA3OTQ-> New Photos 1
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDBkZTF0B
> > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> > 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM1NDUzMDc5NA--> Visit Your Group
> >
> >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYzlqaTM3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> > jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzU0NTMwNzk0>
> > 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
> > =20524/stime=1354530794/nc1=4025291/nc2=5008815/nc3=3848627>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Marie wrote:
> You wouldn't expect English accounts of any physical imperfections dating from Richard's lifetime, and given the appearance of many of the European royal houses it is not surprising if continental writers tended to steer clear of such comments as well. Besides, Richard's scoliosis would have been quite successfully hidden by his tailor adjusting the padding in his clothes, and he was not totally naked from the waist up at his coronation, just stripped down to his linen.
> To my way of thinking the scoliosis of the Greyfriars skeleton, causing raising of the right shoulder, and the nature of the two earliest reports - ie of raised right shoulder and crooked back - seems too much of a coincidence.
> Also, the schoolmaster's claim that Richard was buried in a ditch may well be an exaggeration of the facts. According to this month's Ricardian Bulletin, the Greyfriars Warrior, although placed in the most prestigious spot in the church, was lburied without a coffin, squeezed into a small trench dug into the floor which proved was rather too small for the body.
> Or do you not think the Greyfriars skeleton is likely to be Richard's?

Carol responds:

I do think it's Richard's, but there's all the difference in the world between a church burial in a prestigious spot, coffin or not, and being thrown in a ditch. I've already made all my points regarding the supposed "crookback," including the suggestions that it's what the archaeologists expected to find (cf. the "evidence" of smothering in the bones in the urn) and that his back might have been broken after death so that his body would stay on the horse. I've also mentioned the lack of contemporary descriptions of a raised shoulder or crooked back. Surely, hostile sources such as Commynes would have pointed it out? So, I guess we'll just have to wait.

I really don't understand this need to defend Burton at York (or Rous). Shall we defend the charge of hypocrisy, too?

Carol

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Carol, both my children were born with a good head of hair. My son's would have been down to his shoulders if it hadn't stuck straight up in the air. It was also two-tone, mostly dark but with about 1" length of blond tip. My daughter's, on the other hand, was almost black with blond roots.
> And I know there is another forum member who was born with teeth - I imagine by the time I get through my backlog of posts I shall probably find one from her on that subject so I'll say no more.
>


I'm one of those born with two teeth. They had no roots and fell out after a couple of months, but they were sharp. According to family lore, I bit the doctor a good one when he examined me, and my mother was encouraged to abandon breast-feeding and put me on canned milk formula rather quickly.

I also had a luxuriant head of curly black hair, which also fell out and was replaced by the straight blonde hair I had the rest of my life till I went grey. People seeing me after age six months or so would believe the baby in the earliest photos was really me.

Katy

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

I also had a luxuriant head of curly black hair, which also fell out and was replaced by the straight blonde hair I had the rest of my life till I went grey. People seeing me after age six months or so would believe the baby in the earliest photos was really me.


Obviously, I meant "would not" believe it was me.

Maybe I'm a changeling.
>
> Katy
>

> I do think it's Richard's, but there's all the difference in the world between a church burial in a prestigious spot, coffin or not, and being thrown in a ditch. I've already made all my points regarding the supposed "crookback," including the suggestions that it's what the archaeologists expected to find (cf. the "evidence" of smothering in the bones in the urn) and that his back might have been broken after death so that his body would stay on the horse. I've also mentioned the lack of contemporary descriptions of a raised shoulder or crooked back. Surely, hostile sources such as Commynes would have pointed it out? So, I guess we'll just have to wait.
>
> I really don't understand this need to defend Burton at York (or Rous). Shall we defend the charge of hypocrisy, too?
>
> Carol
>

Hi Carol,

Since you ended on a question, I shall give an answer. What other way of negating a person's good deeds/ caring talk is there other than putting it down to hypocrisy and cynical wooing of public support? I believe the con-man's maxim runs something like: "When lying, always be sure to include as much of the truth as you can". Why totally make things up about the appearance of a famous person so recently dead? It wouldn't have worked.
Why on earth would people without a vicious agenda go around commenting on something as harmless as a raised shoulder, which was probably almost entirely concealed by tailoring?
This isn't about defending Rous or Burton, whom I'm quite sure I wouldn't have liked*. It's about attempting to get at the truth. But only time will tell if this skeleton is Richard's, and if it is whether the bend in the spine was caused by scoliosis or breakage. Seems an awfully odd conicidence to me, though.
Marie
*Particularly Burton. At least Rous MAY have been trying to please Henry VII in order to get young Warwick released from the Tower.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Carol, both my children were born with a good head of hair. My son's would have been down to his shoulders if it hadn't stuck straight up in the air. It was also two-tone, mostly dark but with about 1" length of blond tip. My daughter's, on the other hand, was almost black with blond roots.
> And I know there is another forum member who was born with teeth - I imagine by the time I get through my backlog of posts I shall probably find one from her on that subject so I'll say no more.

Carol responds:

My daughter and grandson were also born with a good head of hair, but it didn't reach their shoulders. Of course, newborn babies have no necks to speak of, unlike eleven-month-olds, who are starting to look like children. In fact, Rous's description comes closer to fitting a two-year-old than a newborn of any description. And I'm well aware that some babies are born with a few teeth. It still sounds to me as if Rous means a full set of teeth. And it still sounds to me like more than spin.

So, sorry, Marie, but you haven't convinced me.

Carol

Marie wrote:
> We actually have a good source for Thomas's birth - it was December 1450.

Carol responds:

Was that Warkworth's Chronicle? I don't have access to it.

By the way, I found it hard to follow your post because it didn't clearly distinguish between your own contributions and those you were quoting. Luckily, I recognized my own comments.

Regarding Thomas's birth being in December 1450, what I said clearly applies. Cecily would not have looked pregnant in the interval between December 1450 and about three months into her pregnancy with Richard (ca. April 1452). I see no way that even the most ignorant waiting woman or cleric could mistake this for a twenty-month pregnancy, which the women, at least, would know was impossible.

As for your theory about the Countess of Warwick being present at the birth, it's just speculation.

We really never will see eye to eye on this particular topic.

Carol

Carol,

I did my best to distinguish my answers, with a space before and my name directly below each one. Sorry if i5t wasn't clear.

My short answer to your post below is that I had suggested that what Rous had overheard had actually been meant as a joke. Clearly it wouldn't have been said seriously - that Rous attempted to pull this one off just shows the naivety of the poor old celibate hermit that he was. It's such a silly claim that I don't think anyone else ever repeated it, but I stand to be corrected.

Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > We actually have a good source for Thomas's birth - it was December 1450.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Was that Warkworth's Chronicle? I don't have access to it.
>
> By the way, I found it hard to follow your post because it didn't clearly distinguish between your own contributions and those you were quoting. Luckily, I recognized my own comments.
>
> Regarding Thomas's birth being in December 1450, what I said clearly applies. Cecily would not have looked pregnant in the interval between December 1450 and about three months into her pregnancy with Richard (ca. April 1452). I see no way that even the most ignorant waiting woman or cleric could mistake this for a twenty-month pregnancy, which the women, at least, would know was impossible.
>
> As for your theory about the Countess of Warwick being present at the birth, it's just speculation.
>
> We really never will see eye to eye on this particular topic.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> > I do think it's Richard's, but there's all the difference in the world between a church burial in a prestigious spot, coffin or not, and being thrown in a ditch. I've already made all my points regarding the supposed "crookback," including the suggestions that it's what the archaeologists expected to find (cf. the "evidence" of smothering in the bones in the urn) and that his back might have been broken after death so that his body would stay on the horse. I've also mentioned the lack of contemporary descriptions of a raised shoulder or crooked back. Surely, hostile sources such as Commynes would have pointed it out? So, I guess we'll just have to wait.
> >
> > I really don't understand this need to defend Burton at York (or Rous). Shall we defend the charge of hypocrisy, too?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> Since you ended on a question, I shall give an answer. What other way of negating a person's good deeds/ caring talk is there other than putting it down to hypocrisy and cynical wooing of public support? I believe the con-man's maxim runs something like: "When lying, always be sure to include as much of the truth as you can". Why totally make things up about the appearance of a famous person so recently dead? It wouldn't have worked.
> Why on earth would people without a vicious agenda go around commenting on something as harmless as a raised shoulder, which was probably almost entirely concealed by tailoring?
> This isn't about defending Rous or Burton, whom I'm quite sure I wouldn't have liked*. It's about attempting to get at the truth. But only time will tell if this skeleton is Richard's, and if it is whether the bend in the spine was caused by scoliosis or breakage. Seems an awfully odd conicidence to me, though.
> Marie
> *Particularly Burton. At least Rous MAY have been trying to please Henry VII in order to get young Warwick released from the Tower.
>
Carol responds:

I agree that the charge of hypocrisy resulted from an inability to otherwise explain Richard's good deeds, and I'm sure that the charge wasn't confined to Burton. But I'm also sure that Burton was just repeating Tudor-based gossip. The sad thing is that it had penetrated so far north at such an early date and that at least some citizens of York believed it.

I understand your hope that Rous was only trying to get young Warwick released from the Tower, but to me he's nothing but a time server. Either way, his lies or "spin" did great damage via More, who, ironically, pointed out the unlikelihood of the twenty-months-in-the-womb story.

I still think that the hair and teeth were added as "evidence" that he was twenty months in his mother's womb. It didn't matter to Rous whether those details were true any more than it mattered what his (unprovable and probably unknowable) rising sign was. It only mattered that they would make Richard seem monstrous. And the fact that Rous got Richard's birth date wrong makes it quite likely that he was wrong on all other counts as well.

My chief problem is with would-be biographers like Wilkinson and Pollard who spend time on these invented or irrelevant details as if they were worth considering.

Carol

Carol

Katey said:
I'm one of those born with two teeth. They had no roots and fell out after a couple of months, but they were sharp. According to family lore, I bit the doctor a good one when he examined me, and my mother was encouraged to abandon breast-feeding and put me on canned milk formula rather quickly.

I also had a luxuriant head of curly black hair, which also fell out and was replaced by the straight blonde hair I had the rest of my life till I went grey. People seeing me after age six months or so would believe the baby in the earliest photos was really me.


No teeth for me but I too had lots of very dark hair.  I also saw a woman in the cafe at M&S last year with the tiniest (10 days old) yet hairiest baby I have ever seen - masses of  brown hair and I've never seen anything like it.  We got talking (me and the mum, not the baby) and although I refrained from saying "your baby looks like a werewolf" the mother told me that everyone commented on the hair and that her previous child had been exactly the same.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Carol,
>
> I did my best to distinguish my answers, with a space before and my name directly below each one. Sorry if i5t wasn't clear.
>
> My short answer to your post below is that I had suggested that what Rous had overheard had actually been meant as a joke. Clearly it wouldn't have been said seriously - that Rous attempted to pull this one off just shows the naivety of the poor old celibate hermit that he was. It's such a silly claim that I don't think anyone else ever repeated it, but I stand to be corrected.
>
> Marie

Carol responds:

I was just suggesting that you might label the "speaker" to make it easier to distinguish your comments from those of the person you're quoting. (It's not just your posts that I have this problem with. A lot of people seem to think that a space is sufficient even though most people space between their own paragraphs.)

I disagree that even a celibate old priest would be so naive as to take such a joke seriously even if one had been made. And with the interval between Thomas's birth and Richard's being so large (and Cecily undoubtedly ceasing to look pregnant during that interval), I think your speculation that such a joke might have existed unlikely at best. My theory--and, like yours, it just a theory--is that the hair and teeth were imaginative details added for verisimilitude, just as More/Morton's strawberries seem to make that scene authentic for some readers. (Obviously, they don't for me.)

Anyway, I do appreciate your factual details, such as the date of Thomas's birth, which I'm assuming is from Warkworth's.

Can you by any chance supply a date for Burton's "crokeback" remark in relation to Rous's description? Was there any chance that anyone other than Henry and maybe some courtiers could have read the Rous description?

Carol

> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree that the charge of hypocrisy resulted from an inability to otherwise explain Richard's good deeds, and I'm sure that the charge wasn't confined to Burton. But I'm also sure that Burton was just repeating Tudor-based gossip. The sad thing is that it had penetrated so far north at such an early date and that at least some citizens of York believed it.
>
> I understand your hope that Rous was only trying to get young Warwick released from the Tower, but to me he's nothing but a time server. Either way, his lies or "spin" did great damage via More, who, ironically, pointed out the unlikelihood of the twenty-months-in-the-womb story.
>
> I still think that the hair and teeth were added as "evidence" that he was twenty months in his mother's womb. It didn't matter to Rous whether those details were true any more than it mattered what his (unprovable and probably unknowable) rising sign was. It only mattered that they would make Richard seem monstrous. And the fact that Rous got Richard's birth date wrong makes it quite likely that he was wrong on all other counts as well.
>
> My chief problem is with would-be biographers like Wilkinson and Pollard who spend time on these invented or irrelevant details as if they were worth considering.
>
> Carol

>
Hi Carol,

really we are not far apart. I would only ques5tion whether it mattered to Rous if the details were true or not. I suggest that - given the early date at which he wrote - it would have mattered to him that they fitted in with what was known. After all, Richard's mother was still alive!
Clearly Rous wrote as though Richard emerged from the womb like a one-year-old baby (he would have needed nearly three years gestation to emerge as a two-year-old) but the fact remains that there is nothing in his description of Richard's newborn appearance that is impossible or even very unusual (as you say, newborns have no necks so their hair would not need to be very long to reach their shoulders at some point). If he'd said Richard was talking or eating solid food within hours of birth THEN I'd have thought he was totally making it up.
I also think it is significant that Burton's comment was made in York, where Richard had been seen an awful lot.
I know Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong, but he didn't make it up, he simply got his birthday mixed up with his brother Clarence's (with whom, of course, Rous would have been quite closely associated). Whether Scorpio was Richard's rising sign or Clarence's we'll probably never know.
If the skeleton does turn out to be Richard's and to have scoliosis, would that change your opinion that Rous's and Burton's claims were complete inventions?
Marie

Marie wrote:
> really we are not far apart. I would only ques5tion whether it mattered to Rous if the details were true or not. I suggest that - given the early date at which he wrote - it would have mattered to him that they fitted in with what was known. After all, Richard's mother was still alive!

Carol responds:

I don't think that the truth mattered to him at all or he would never have come up with the two years in his mother's womb idea, which was obviously absurd. It would, however, have mattered a great deal to Cecily if she had known of it! For the rest, everything he said is either wrong (the birth date, which he may have deliberately confused with George's to fit with his Scorpio motif since October 22 was on the cusp between Libra and Scorpio or simply misremembered and failed to check) or impossible to confirm.

Marie:
> Clearly Rous wrote as though Richard emerged from the womb like a one-year-old baby (he would have needed nearly three years gestation to emerge as a two-year-old) but the fact remains that there is nothing in his description of Richard's newborn appearance that is impossible or even very unusual (as you say, newborns have no necks so their hair would not need to be very long to reach their shoulders at some point). If he'd said Richard was talking or eating solid food within hours of birth THEN I'd have thought he was totally making it up.

Carol responds:

The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth) fits a two-year-old better than an eleven-month-old. (I looked at images of eleven-year-old babies online before I made that post.) He may have been confused, thinking that "two years in his mother's womb" would produce a two-year-old child or simply been so unfamiliar with babies that he didn't know when the teeth normally came in. Either way, I think he's providing physical details for his monstrous infant. If he'd said that Richard weighed twenty pounds at birth, no one would have believed him. But, of course, the new baby regardless of size wouldn't be talking. That requires exposure to adults and children with the capacity to speak. And if he had baby Richard eating, say, meat an hour after birth, no one would have believed him. As it is, the myth somehow got passed on and was still being spread when More was writing his "History." (By the way, if Morton gave More a manuscript written before Rous's description was published, it wouldn't have contained that morsel, evidence that More himself wrote the first part of the manuscript.)

Marie:
> I also think it is significant that Burton's comment was made in York, where Richard had been seen an awful lot.

Carol responds:

But probably not by Burton, who clearly didn't know him or anything about him. Given the "ypocrite" and "buried in a dyke" remarks, he's clearly just repeating hearsay. I suspect that the "crokeback" was probably in the same category. It seems to be one of those rumors that, once started, spread quickly and, alas, never died.

Marie:
> I know Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong, but he didn't make it up, he simply got his birthday mixed up with his brother Clarence's (with whom, of course, Rous would have been quite closely associated). Whether Scorpio was Richard's rising sign or Clarence's we'll probably never know.

Carol responds:

I seriously doubt that either of them had a Scorpio rising sign (not that it matters from our modern perspective). It was just a detail that Rous could conveniently invent (knowing that no one, not even Henry VII, would have access to Richard's natal chart) to counter the inconvenient fact that Richard was born under Libra. George's birthday was conveniently close to Scorpio (though why he didn't fudge it another day or two to make Richard a seemingly full-fledged Scorpio, I don't know).

Didn't Warkworth record the time of birth for some of the Duke of York's children? I know that he didn't for Richard.

Marie:
> If the skeleton does turn out to be Richard's and to have scoliosis, would that change your opinion that Rous's and Burton's claims were complete inventions?

Carol responds:

As I said earlier, I do think that the skeleton is Richard's, but I also think that the archaeologists may be seeing what they expect to see. I don't know whether you're interested in paleoanthropology, but I am. You see the assumptions that the paleoanthropologists, especially Meave Leakey and Tim White, operate under. You can guess ahead of time what they're going to say about a given fossil (from opposing points of view that in some ways mirror the Ricardian vs. Tudor perspectives).

So while I certainly believe that the skeleton is Richard's, I'll wait till it's examined by an authority on skeletal deformities (as well as a forensic pathologist) before I draw any conclusions that differ from the testimony of reputable authorities (among whom I don't include Rous post-Bosworth or Burton under any circumstances). I'm also awaiting a full-body replica. I'd like to see how it appeared fully clothed, which is all anyone would have seen until Richard's body was displayed naked (spine down so that no one could see it and arms probably hanging down so that any unnevenness of the shoulders would not be visible) after his death.

At any rate, I think that certain rumors, "crokeback" among them, were deliberately and rapidly spread by Tudor's retainers after his death. But I suspect that, had Richard won Bosworth, no one would have any idea that one shoulder was higher than the other--if, indeed, it really was.

Now if Rous, who did see the living Richard, had made that statement without the nonsense about two years in his mother's womb and Scorpio rising, I'd believe him. But since no one else who actually saw Richard describes him as having one shoulder higher than the other, I'll wait to see what authorities other than the archaeologists who discovered him (and expected him to have that raised shoulder) have to say.

Meantime, it's odd that one shoulder higher than the other somehow got transformed within only a few short years to a "crokeback." It's easy enough to see how that became by Shakespeare's time, a hunchback.

But even if Richard did have spinal curvature, no one would have seen it, especially if, as you say, he and Anne were anointed in their "shirts" (or he in a shirt and she in a shift. Would that have been described as "naked" by medieval authorities? If so, maybe our idea that medieval people slept in the nude is also mistaken.)

I'm assuming that your authority for the "shirt" is Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," which I don't own and most definitely can't afford (especially since my Subaru is dying at the ripe age of seventeen!).

At any rate, if Richard really had severe scoliosis and it was as bad as the pictures I've seen online indicate, it's amazing that he was a soldier at all or that anyone (read Edward) expected him to become one. It's also astonishing that he wasn't called "crokeback" in his lifetime, even by Sir William Stanley, who merely called him "Old Dick."

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > really we are not far apart. I would only ques5tion whether it mattered to Rous if the details were true or not. I suggest that - given the early date at which he wrote - it would have mattered to him that they fitted in with what was known. After all, Richard's mother was still alive!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that the truth mattered to him at all or he would never have come up with the two years in his mother's womb idea, which was obviously absurd.


Marie responds:
Hold on, Carol. If Rous realised the idea was that absurd he wouldn't have used it(unless his whole diatribe against Richard was a spoof). Obviously everybody else realised it was silly because nobody copied this allegation, at least I think not.
You wrote in your earlier post that no one would have made such a joke because it was absurd, but surely that is the point of a joke. Sensible statements aren't funny. It is clearly the sort of jest that appealed to the 15th century sense of humour because I think it's Vergil who gives us a very similar one supposedly made by the English ambassador about Perkin Warbeck, ie that the reason he appeared so suddenly when he did fully grown is that Margaret of Burgundy had been gestating him for fifteen years. And we have a recent joke in a not dissimilar vein from George here on the forum, referring to his decision not to get pregnant.



Carol wrote:
It would, however, have mattered a great deal to Cecily if she had known of it! For the rest, everything he said is either wrong (the birth date, which he may have deliberately confused with George's to fit with his Scorpio motif since October 22 was on the cusp between Libra and Scorpio or simply misremembered and failed to check) or impossible to confirm.

Marie responds:
The birthdate has nothing to do with the rising sign. What the astrological laity refer to as the birth sign (determined by the month of birth) is the sun sign - ie the sign the sun was passing through in the month of one's birth. What Rows referred to is the rising sign, also known as the ascendant, which is the sign the dawn horizon was passing through at the time of birth - it changes twelve times in every 24 hours. Rows had no motive to move Richard's birthdate in order to give him Scorpio as his rising sign.



>
> Carol responds:
>
> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)

Marie responds
Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?


Carol wrote:
If he'd said that Richard weighed twenty pounds at birth, no one would have believed him. But, of course, the new baby regardless of size wouldn't be talking. That requires exposure to adults and children with the capacity to speak. And if he had baby Richard eating, say, meat an hour after birth, no one would have believed him.

Marie responds:
Yet he expected them to believe he had lain in the womb for two years - biennio (not twenty months).



arol wrote:
As it is, the myth somehow got passed on and was still being spread when More was writing his "History." (By the way, if Morton gave More a manuscript written before Rous's description was published, it wouldn't have contained that morsel, evidence that More himself wrote the first part of the manuscript.)

Marie responds:
I'm not particularly into the Morton-wrote-More theory, but given that Rous completed his work in about 1489 and presented it to the King, and Morton lived until 1500, I don't see how this rules out Morton as author of any part of More. Rows' work was not actually published until long afterwards - it was the original MS that More and Vergil would have used.

>
> Marie:
> > I also think it is significant that Burton's comment was made in York, where Richard had been seen an awful lot.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But probably not by Burton, who clearly didn't know him or anything about him. Given the "ypocrite" and "buried in a dyke" remarks, he's clearly just repeating hearsay. I suspect that the "crokeback" was probably in the same category. It seems to be one of those rumors that, once started, spread quickly and, alas, never died.
>
> Marie:
> > I know Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong, but he didn't make it up, he simply got his birthday mixed up with his brother Clarence's (with whom, of course, Rous would have been quite closely associated). Whether Scorpio was Richard's rising sign or Clarence's we'll probably never know.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I seriously doubt that either of them had a Scorpio rising sign (not that it matters from our modern perspective). It was just a detail that Rous could conveniently invent (knowing that no one, not even Henry VII, would have access to Richard's natal chart) to counter the inconvenient fact that Richard was born under Libra. George's birthday was conveniently close to Scorpio (though why he didn't fudge it another day or two to make Richard a seemingly full-fledged Scorpio, I don't know).
>
> Didn't Warkworth record the time of birth for some of the Duke of York's children? I know that he didn't for Richard.

Marie responds:
No.

>
> Marie:
> > If the skeleton does turn out to be Richard's and to have scoliosis, would that change your opinion that Rous's and Burton's claims were complete inventions?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I said earlier, I do think that the skeleton is Richard's, but I also think that the archaeologists may be seeing what they expect to see. I don't know whether you're interested in paleoanthropology, but I am. You see the assumptions that the paleoanthropologists, especially Meave Leakey and Tim White, operate under. You can guess ahead of time what they're going to say about a given fossil (from opposing points of view that in some ways mirror the Ricardian vs. Tudor perspectives).
>
> So while I certainly believe that the skeleton is Richard's, I'll wait till it's examined by an authority on skeletal deformities (as well as a forensic pathologist) before I draw any conclusions that differ from the testimony of reputable authorities (among whom I don't include Rous post-Bosworth or Burton under any circumstances).

Marie responds
What reputable authorities?

Carol wrote:

> At any rate, I think that certain rumors, "crokeback" among them, were deliberately and rapidly spread by Tudor's retainers after his death.

Marie responds:
On what evidence? Why do you think anyone just trying to be malicious would make up something as harmless as that?



>
> Now if Rous, who did see the living Richard, had made that statement without the nonsense about two years in his mother's womb and Scorpio rising, I'd believe him. But since no one else who actually saw Richard describes him as having one shoulder higher than the other,

Marie responds:
As Katy pointed out, we have very very few descriptions of anybody from that time. There is only one contemporary description of Richard, and that is Von Poppelau's.

> But even if Richard did have spinal curvature, no one would have seen it, especially if, as you say, he and Anne were anointed in their "shirts" (or he in a shirt and she in a shift. Would that have been described as "naked" by medieval authorities? If so, maybe our idea that medieval people slept in the nude is also mistaken.)

Marie responds:
There would of course have been people who knew about the scoliosis rather than just the raised shoulder - attendants who helped dress Richard, his physician, his nurse, his mother, his siblings, his wife.....
And yes, naked tended to mean not properly dressed rather than nude, but people did sleep in the nude because there are illustrations of them doing so.

>
> I'm assuming that your authority for the "shirt" is Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," which I don't own and most definitely can't afford (especially since my Subaru is dying at the ripe age of seventeen!).

Marie responds:
Originally (I borrowed it from the Society library), but it's been repeated in the latest Ricardian Bulletin.

>
> At any rate, if Richard really had severe scoliosis and it was as bad as the pictures I've seen online indicate, it's amazing that he was a soldier at all or that anyone (read Edward) expected him to become one. It's also astonishing that he wasn't called "crokeback" in his lifetime, even by Sir William Stanley, who merely called him "Old Dick."

Marie responds:
Because scoliosis is side-to-side it doesn't look all that startling once the skeleton is covered in muscle and skin. My mother developed severe scoliosis in old age due to arthritis. We knew she'd shrunk and one shoulder had gone down, but had no idea what was going on inside (a spine shaped like a letter S) until she was X-rayed. She wrote a bicycle until she was 82 and it was the arthritic joints, not the spinal curvature, that defeated her in the end. What we know about the owner of this skeleton is that he was strong and active, and I should have thought a post-mortem fracture in the spine would be easy to spot. The archaeologists weren't expecting to find Richard at all, and the Society members who had enthused them to attempt the dig would in any case not have encouraged them to think they were looking for a man with scoliosis.
We are both agreed that we need to wait on the results of the investigation, but we just have rather different expectations.

> Marie responds:
> The birthdate has nothing to do with the rising sign. What the astrological laity refer to as the birth sign (determined by the month of birth) is the sun sign - ie the sign the sun was passing through in the month of one's birth. What Rows referred to is the rising sign, also known as the ascendant, which is the sign the dawn horizon was passing through at the time of birth - it changes twelve times in every 24 hours. Rows had no motive to move Richard's birthdate in order to give him Scorpio as his rising sign.
>
Carol responds:

I *know* that the birth date has nothing to do with the rising sign, which is based on the time of the birth (and which Rous could only know if he had access to Richard's horoscope). *We've been through all this time and again.* I was trying to say that I think Rous resorted to the (unprovable) rising sign because he wanted to make Richard a Scorpio and he couldn't do it using Richard's birth sign, which unfortunately for him was Libra, the antithesis of what he wanted to convey. I suggested that he may have borrowed George's birthday into the bargain because it bordered on Scorpio (as opposed to Richard's, which was unarguably Libra).

Why you insist on explaining what you explained something like two years ago and I understood then I don't know. I'm too frustrated to respond to the rest of this post.

carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
\
> Carol :

> Why you [she refers to Marie] insist on explaining what you explained something like two years ago and I understood then I don't know. I'm too frustrated to respond to the rest of this post.



Katy says:

I'm glad you do, and that other people explain things that were explained two years ago, or two months, for that matter. Other people might not have been here then and would like to have the information, or may have forgotten or misunderstood then or not seen a connection. I know I don't mind taking a second, 15th, or 132nd look at a subject.

If we were to only plow each field once, then the discussion of Richard III would have died out about 450 years ago.

Katy

yet, 100 years or so later there are contemporary reports of e1 in a procession with her chest bared. the medieval/renaissance people weren't "ashamed" of their bodies. look at michaelanglo's art. nudity became scandlous in the late 1500's, early 1600's a long with the purtianical protestant reformation.
 
i have no doubts that r3 and anne were barechested during a segment of coronation. one would have to know where beaufort was situated at this point in time, to know if she was in position to notice any possible curvature of richard's spine, or even an elevated shoulder.
 
moreover, one would have to know *how* richard was standing. were he and anne facing each other, with richard's "rumoured" disfigurement faced towards a wall vs the crowd?
 
roslyn...trying to plough through over 3800 msgs. i'm beginning to wonder if i'll ever catch up with all the "me too" comments...sigh

--- On Tue, 12/4/12, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:


From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Subject: Re: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, December 4, 2012, 6:19 AM



 



I must admit I didn't think it likely Anne was emulating a Page 3 girl ....

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012, 2:07
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought

 

Apparently it's not actually true - they both wore 'shirts'
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I always think of the coronation and how for the anointing he and his queen were stripped to the waist for that part of the ceremony. No mention of it taking place in private, yet nobody as far as we know mentioned anything out of the ordinary about Richard's physique, something the likes of Margaret Beaufort would have pounced on had there been anything.
> Paul
>
>

Hi Carol,

I thought you might like to know I'm having difficulty tracking down the birthdate for Thomas. I had December 1450 in a list I took down from somewhere. I think actually it might have been given in Markham - can anyone help there? The list seemed to have been taken from William Wyrecstre's Annales as the other details tally with Wyrcestre's account, but on checking Wyrcestre I see that he doesn't actually mention Thomas at all. Thomas is listed in that rhyme about York's children, but that gives no birth dates! So, anyway, on current evidence Thomas may well have been born two years before Richard but not necessarily. If he is imaginary then there would have been three years between Cecily's last baby (George) and Richard.

On the subject of Scorpio rising, I thought you might be interested that according to Wyrcestre George was born at noon. Now, I'm not an astrologer, but I reason that, during the month when the sun is in Scorpio, the sun and sign of Scorpio must pass through the dawn horizon at the same time. In other words, on 21st October you would need to have been born at dawn to have Scorpio as your rising sign. I think if George was born at noon on the cusp of Libra and Scorpio he would have had Leo or Cancer as his rising sign.
Equally, if Rows was correct about Richard's rising sign being Scorpio (and I know it is a huge if), then I think he would have been born an hour or so after dawn.
But I know there are people on this forum who are really into astrology, and can hopefully either confirm or correct this.
Marie


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Marie responds:
> > The birthdate has nothing to do with the rising sign. What the astrological laity refer to as the birth sign (determined by the month of birth) is the sun sign - ie the sign the sun was passing through in the month of one's birth. What Rows referred to is the rising sign, also known as the ascendant, which is the sign the dawn horizon was passing through at the time of birth - it changes twelve times in every 24 hours. Rows had no motive to move Richard's birthdate in order to give him Scorpio as his rising sign.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I *know* that the birth date has nothing to do with the rising sign, which is based on the time of the birth (and which Rous could only know if he had access to Richard's horoscope). *We've been through all this time and again.* I was trying to say that I think Rous resorted to the (unprovable) rising sign because he wanted to make Richard a Scorpio and he couldn't do it using Richard's birth sign, which unfortunately for him was Libra, the antithesis of what he wanted to convey. I suggested that he may have borrowed George's birthday into the bargain because it bordered on Scorpio (as opposed to Richard's, which was unarguably Libra).
>
> Why you insist on explaining what you explained something like two years ago and I understood then I don't know. I'm too frustrated to respond to the rest of this post.
>
> carol
>

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 December 2012, 0:47
Subject: Re: available research pamplets..  a thought

> What we know about the owner of this skeleton is that he was strong and
active, and I should have thought a post-mortem fracture in the spine
would be easy to spot.
> The archaeologists weren't expecting to find
Richard at all, and the Society members who had enthused them to attempt the dig would in any case not have encouraged

> them to think they were
looking for a man with scoliosis.


This is exactly it.  It would be odd for an osteo-archaeologist to mistake a fracture for scoliosis.  And even odder given that they'd examined the remains sufficiently closely to not only identify one type of spinal condition but *specifically* rule out another (kyphosis).
Jonathan


________________________________



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > really we are not far apart. I would only ques5tion whether it mattered to Rous if the details were true or not. I suggest that - given the early date at which he wrote - it would have mattered to him that they fitted in with what was known. After all, Richard's mother was still alive!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that the truth mattered to him at all or he would never have come up with the two years in his mother's womb idea, which was obviously absurd.

Marie responds:
Hold on, Carol. If Rous realised the idea was that absurd he wouldn't have used it(unless his whole diatribe against Richard was a spoof). Obviously everybody else realised it was silly because nobody copied this allegation, at least I think not.
You wrote in your earlier post that no one would have made such a joke because it was absurd, but surely that is the point of a joke. Sensible statements aren't funny.  It is clearly the sort of jest that appealed to the 15th century sense of humour because I think it's Vergil who gives us a very similar one supposedly made by the English ambassador about Perkin Warbeck, ie that the reason he appeared so suddenly when he did fully grown is that Margaret of Burgundy had been gestating him for fifteen years. And we have a recent joke in a not dissimilar vein from George here on the forum, referring to his decision not to get pregnant.

Carol wrote:
It would, however, have mattered a great deal to Cecily if she had known of it! For the rest, everything he said is either wrong (the birth date, which he may have deliberately confused with George's to fit with his Scorpio motif since October 22 was on the cusp between Libra and Scorpio or simply misremembered and failed to check) or impossible to confirm.

Marie responds:
The birthdate has nothing to do with the rising sign. What the astrological laity refer to as the birth sign (determined by the month of birth) is the sun sign - ie the sign the sun was passing through in the month of one's birth. What Rows referred to is the rising sign, also known as the ascendant, which is the sign the dawn horizon was passing through at the time of birth - it changes twelve times in every 24 hours. Rows had no motive to move Richard's birthdate in order to give him Scorpio as his rising sign.

>
> Carol responds:
>
> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)

Marie responds
Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?

Carol wrote:
If he'd said that Richard weighed twenty pounds at birth, no one would have believed him. But, of course, the new baby regardless of size wouldn't be talking. That requires exposure to adults and children with the capacity to speak. And if he had baby Richard eating, say, meat an hour after birth, no one would have believed him.

Marie responds:
Yet he expected them to believe he had lain in the womb for two years - biennio (not twenty months).

arol wrote:
As it is, the myth somehow got passed on and was still being spread when More was writing his "History." (By the way, if Morton gave More a manuscript written before Rous's description was published, it wouldn't have contained that morsel, evidence that More himself wrote the first part of the manuscript.)

Marie responds:
I'm not particularly into the Morton-wrote-More theory, but given that Rous completed his work in about 1489 and presented it to the King, and Morton lived until 1500, I don't see how this rules out Morton as author of any part of More. Rows' work was not actually published until long afterwards - it was the original MS that More and Vergil would have used.

>
> Marie:
> > I also think it is significant that Burton's comment was made in York, where Richard had been seen an awful lot.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But probably not by Burton, who clearly didn't know him or anything about him. Given the "ypocrite" and "buried in a dyke" remarks, he's clearly just repeating hearsay. I suspect that the "crokeback" was probably in the same category. It seems to be one of those rumors that, once started, spread quickly and, alas, never died.
>
> Marie:
> > I know Rous got Richard's birthdate wrong, but he didn't make it up, he simply got his birthday mixed up with his brother Clarence's (with whom, of course, Rous would have been quite closely associated). Whether Scorpio was Richard's rising sign or Clarence's we'll probably never know.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I seriously doubt that either of them had a Scorpio rising sign (not that it matters from our modern perspective). It was just a detail that Rous could conveniently invent (knowing that no one, not even Henry VII, would have access to Richard's natal chart) to counter the inconvenient fact that Richard was born under Libra. George's birthday was conveniently close to Scorpio (though why he didn't fudge it another day or two to make Richard a seemingly full-fledged Scorpio, I don't know).
>
> Didn't Warkworth record the time of birth for some of the Duke of York's children? I know that he didn't for Richard.

Marie responds:
No.

>
> Marie:
> > If the skeleton does turn out to be Richard's and to have scoliosis, would that change your opinion that Rous's and Burton's claims were complete inventions?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> As I said earlier, I do think that the skeleton is Richard's, but I also think that the archaeologists may be seeing what they expect to see. I don't know whether you're interested in paleoanthropology, but I am. You see the assumptions that the paleoanthropologists, especially Meave Leakey and Tim White, operate under. You can guess ahead of time what they're going to say about a given fossil (from opposing points of view that in some ways mirror the Ricardian vs. Tudor perspectives).
>
> So while I certainly believe that the skeleton is Richard's, I'll wait till it's examined by an authority on skeletal deformities (as well as a forensic pathologist) before I draw any conclusions that differ from the testimony of reputable authorities (among whom I don't include Rous post-Bosworth or Burton under any circumstances).

Marie responds
What reputable authorities?

Carol wrote:

> At any rate, I think that certain rumors, "crokeback" among them, were deliberately and rapidly spread by Tudor's retainers after his death.

Marie responds:
On what evidence? Why do you think anyone just trying to be malicious would make up something as harmless as that?

>
> Now if Rous, who did see the living Richard, had made that statement without the nonsense about two years in his mother's womb and Scorpio rising, I'd believe him. But since no one else who actually saw Richard describes him as having one shoulder higher than the other,

Marie responds:
As Katy pointed out, we have very very few descriptions of anybody from that time. There is only one contemporary description of Richard, and that is Von Poppelau's.

> But even if Richard did have spinal curvature, no one would have seen it,  especially if, as you say, he and Anne were anointed in their "shirts" (or he in a shirt and she in a shift. Would that have been described as "naked" by medieval authorities? If so, maybe our idea that medieval people slept in the nude is also mistaken.)

Marie responds:
There would of course have been people who knew about the scoliosis rather than just the raised shoulder - attendants who helped dress Richard, his physician, his nurse, his mother, his siblings, his wife.....
And yes, naked tended to mean not properly dressed rather than nude, but people did sleep in the nude because there are illustrations of them doing so.

>
> I'm assuming that your authority for the "shirt" is Sutton and Hammond's "Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents," which I don't own and most definitely can't afford (especially since my Subaru is dying at the ripe age of seventeen!).

Marie responds:
Originally (I borrowed it from the Society library), but it's been repeated in the latest Ricardian Bulletin.

>
> At any rate, if Richard really had severe scoliosis and it was as bad as the pictures I've seen online indicate, it's amazing that he was a soldier at all or that anyone (read Edward) expected him to become one. It's also astonishing that he wasn't called "crokeback" in his lifetime, even by Sir William Stanley, who merely called him "Old Dick."

Marie responds:
Because scoliosis is side-to-side it doesn't look all that startling once the skeleton is covered in muscle and skin. My mother developed severe scoliosis in old age due to arthritis. We knew she'd shrunk and one shoulder had gone down, but had no idea what was going on inside (a spine shaped like a letter S) until she was X-rayed. She wrote a bicycle until she was 82 and it was the arthritic joints, not the spinal curvature, that defeated her in the end. What we know about the owner of this skeleton is that he was strong and active, and I should have thought a post-mortem fracture in the spine would be easy to spot. The archaeologists weren't expecting to find Richard at all, and the Society members who had enthused them to attempt the dig would in any case not have encouraged them to think they were looking for a man with scoliosis.
We are both agreed that we need to wait on the results of the investigation, but we just have rather different expectations.


 

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I thought you might like to know I'm having difficulty tracking down the birthdate for Thomas. I had December 1450 in a list I took down from somewhere. I think actually it might have been given in Markham - can anyone help there? The list seemed to have been taken from William Wyrecstre's Annales as the other details tally with Wyrcestre's account, but on checking Wyrcestre I see that he doesn't actually mention Thomas at all. Thomas is listed in that rhyme about York's children, but that gives no birth dates! So, anyway, on current evidence Thomas may well have been born two years before Richard but not necessarily. If he is imaginary then there would have been three years between Cecily's last baby (George) and Richard.
>
> On the subject of Scorpio rising, I thought you might be interested that according to Wyrcestre George was born at noon. Now, I'm not an astrologer, but I reason that, during the month when the sun is in Scorpio, the sun and sign of Scorpio must pass through the dawn horizon at the same time. In other words, on 21st October you would need to have been born at dawn to have Scorpio as your rising sign. I think if George was born at noon on the cusp of Libra and Scorpio he would have had Leo or Cancer as his rising sign.

CORRECTION:
YUP - KNEW I'D GET IT THE WRONG WAY ROUND. WITH LIBRA/SCORPIO CUSP AT THE TOP OF THE CHART (IE NOON) THE EASTERN HORIZON WOULD PASS BETWEEN CAPRICORN AND AQUARIUS, SO THAT GEORGE'S ASCENDANT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE TWO.

I HAVE ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:-
A) CHANGES IN THE CALENDAR - 2ND OCTOBER 15TH CENTURY STYLE IS 11TH OCTOBER IN OUR CALENDAR, AND 21ST IS 30TH;
B) MOVEMENT OF THE ZODIAC SIGNS OVER THE 560 YEARS SINCE GEORGE AND RICHARD'S BIRTHS - I THINK THE SIGNS MOVE ROUND ABOUT ONE PLACE EVERY 2,000 YEARS, DON'T THEY?
MARIE

> Equally, if Rows was correct about Richard's rising sign being Scorpio (and I know it is a huge if), then I think he would have been born an hour or so after dawn.
> But I know there are people on this forum who are really into astrology, and can hopefully either confirm or correct this.
> Marie

http://www.projectbritain.com/calendar/january/lostdays.html

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a thought & CORRECTION





--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> I thought you might like to know I'm having difficulty tracking down the birthdate for Thomas. I had December 1450 in a list I took down from somewhere. I think actually it might have been given in Markham - can anyone help there? The list seemed to have been taken from William Wyrecstre's Annales as the other details tally with Wyrcestre's account, but on checking Wyrcestre I see that he doesn't actually mention Thomas at all. Thomas is listed in that rhyme about York's children, but that gives no birth dates! So, anyway, on current evidence Thomas may well have been born two years before Richard but not necessarily. If he is imaginary then there would have been three years between Cecily's last baby (George) and Richard.
>
> On the subject of Scorpio rising, I thought you might be interested that according to Wyrcestre George was born at noon. Now, I'm not an astrologer, but I reason that, during the month when the sun is in Scorpio, the sun and sign of Scorpio must pass through the dawn horizon at the same time. In other words, on 21st October you would need to have been born at dawn to have Scorpio as your rising sign. I think if George was born at noon on the cusp of Libra and Scorpio he would have had Leo or Cancer as his rising sign.

CORRECTION:
YUP - KNEW I'D GET IT THE WRONG WAY ROUND. WITH LIBRA/SCORPIO CUSP AT THE TOP OF THE CHART (IE NOON) THE EASTERN HORIZON WOULD PASS BETWEEN CAPRICORN AND AQUARIUS, SO THAT GEORGE'S ASCENDANT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE TWO.

I HAVE ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:-
A) CHANGES IN THE CALENDAR - 2ND OCTOBER 15TH CENTURY STYLE IS 11TH OCTOBER IN OUR CALENDAR, AND 21ST IS 30TH;
B) MOVEMENT OF THE ZODIAC SIGNS OVER THE 560 YEARS SINCE GEORGE AND RICHARD'S BIRTHS - I THINK THE SIGNS MOVE ROUND ABOUT ONE PLACE EVERY 2,000 YEARS, DON'T THEY?
MARIE

> Equally, if Rows was correct about Richard's rising sign being Scorpio (and I know it is a huge if), then I think he would have been born an hour or so after dawn.
> But I know there are people on this forum who are really into astrology, and can hopefully either confirm or correct this.
> Marie

Carol earlier:
> >
> > The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
>
Marie responded"
> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?

Carol again:

Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:

"The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
And so I was; which plainly signified
That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."

I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.

Carol

Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
Marie



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> >
> Marie responded"
> > Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
>
> Carol again:
>
> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
>
> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> And so I was; which plainly signified
> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
>
> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
>
> Carol
>

I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > > >
> > > > The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > >
> > Marie responded"
> > > Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
> >
> > "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > And so I was; which plainly signified
> > That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> >
> > I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Marie wrote:
>
>
> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> Marie

Carol responds:

Which won't give us any help with Richard's birth. At least we agree that Rous is at his least reliable in this passage. "Cum dentibus" (with teeth) still sounds to me as if it means a full set of teeth (enough to scare the midwife--and seriously alarm the poor wet nurse!). Shakespeare's interpretation certainly indicates that it *can* be so read.

But, yes, by all means let's table this discussion.

Carol

I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.

We know Rous rewrite his history to please Henry VII, so I think the absurdities invented against Richard were simply part of his need to present Richard as diabolical -- all part of the "Thank heaven Henry came and saved us from this demonic king." It didn't matter to Rous if his slander wasn't possible; what mattered was that his readers believe his propaganda.

The worse accusation, the better. I'm surprised he didn't give Richard cloven hooves beneath his boots, a pointed tail, and the propensity to summon maidens at the full moon to Middleham to dance naked and drink infant's blood with him.

~Weds

> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that the truth mattered to him at all or he would never have come up with the two years in his mother's womb idea, which was obviously absurd.

>Marie responds:
>Hold on, Carol. If Rous realised the idea was that absurd he wouldn't have >used it(unless his whole diatribe against Richard was a spoof). Obviously >everybody else realised it was silly because nobody copied this allegation, >at least I think not.
>
>You wrote in your earlier post that no one would have made such a joke >because it was absurd, but surely that is the point of a joke. Sensible >statements aren't funny. It is clearly the sort of jest that appealed to the >15th century sense of humour because I think it's Vergil who gives us a >very similar one supposedly made by the English ambassador about >Perkin Warbeck, ie that the reason he appeared so suddenly when he did >fully grown is that Margaret of Burgundy had been gestating him for fifteen >years. And we have a recent joke in a not dissimilar vein from George here >on the forum, referring to his decision not to get pregnant.

I have to agree with Katy. I'd love to be able to read the posts to this list from the beginning, but reality interferes. Letting a discussion cycle back around is really nice for those of us who haven't been here all that long.

It was 1984 the last time I looked closely at Richard III. I'm learning new stuff every day.

Peace,
Wednesday


--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:

> I'm glad you do, and that other people explain things that were explained two years ago, or two months, for that matter. Other people might not have been here then and would like to have the information, or may have forgotten or misunderstood then or not seen a connection. I know I don't mind taking a second, 15th, or 132nd look at a subject.
>
> If we were to only plow each field once, then the discussion of Richard III would have died out about 450 years ago.
>
> Katy
>

"wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.
>
> We know Rous rewrite his history to please Henry VII, so I think the absurdities invented against Richard were simply part of his need to present Richard as diabolical -- all part of the "Thank heaven Henry came and saved us from this demonic king." It didn't matter to Rous if his slander wasn't possible; what mattered was that his readers believe his propaganda.
>
> The worse accusation, the better. I'm surprised he didn't give Richard cloven hooves beneath his boots, a pointed tail, and the propensity to summon maidens at the full moon to Middleham to dance naked and drink infant's blood with him.

Carol responds:

I agree completely with your first two paragraphs (and your earlier statement that "cum dentibus" sounds like a full set of teeth). That last would have been a bit much so soon after Richard's death when many people would remember his just laws or would have seen his progress of 1483. But no one (other than Cecily and a few others) would have remembered his birth, which Rous could make monstrous without fear of correction.

Sorry, Marie, for breaking my promise to table the discussion, but I did want to respond to Wednesday's post. I think the witchcraft/magic point is particularly important. If only we could set aside our modern sensibilities for a moment and read Rous's words as a person of his time, even an educated one, would have read them!

Carol

To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not have been based on fact after all.
Marie

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > > >
> > > Marie responded"
> > > > Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
> > >
> > > "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > > 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > > And so I was; which plainly signified
> > > That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> > >
> > > I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>

I only learned today that a baby can be born with teeth! Obviously, not a full set of choppers but one or two "natal" teeth. That's one of the reasons I love coming here - people are soooo knowledgable! Thanks. Maire.

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not have been based on fact after all.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Carol earlier:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > > > >
> > > > Marie responded"
> > > > > Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
> > > >
> > > > Carol again:
> > > >
> > > > Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
> > > >
> > > > "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > > > 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > > > And so I was; which plainly signified
> > > > That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.


Marie replies:
Never heard of that so tried googling it and haven't come up with any reference. The point about a changeling was that it was swapped with the real baby sometime after birth, so the suspicion grew out of failure to thrive or something of that sort. And probably not something the upper classes would claim a belief in.
I'm not sure that the people we're talking about would have gone for the demon thing either - would it not have been to suggest that Cecily had been raped by a demon like Merlin's mother?
And, again, Rous doesn't claim anything actually demonic.

>

>
> The worse accusation, the better. I'm surprised he didn't give Richard cloven hooves beneath his boots, a pointed tail, and the propensity to summon maidens at the full moon to Middleham to dance naked and drink infant's blood with him.

Marie replies:
Well he didn't, did he?

I know the same "Auberglaube" from germany, that it was believed that a child born with teeth was obsessed by a demon. But I guess this was rather caused by the fact that a baby with teeth gave it´s mother pain while drinking.

Did also a research and found other sayings: that a child born with teeth was thought to become selfish. In various parts it was also important how many natal teeth a child had, and so the number had different meanings.

Usually it meant to be "unlucky".

Marion Z





--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.
>
>
> Marie replies:
> Never heard of that so tried googling it and haven't come up with any reference. The point about a changeling was that it was swapped with the real baby sometime after birth, so the suspicion grew out of failure to thrive or something of that sort. And probably not something the upper classes would claim a belief in.
> I'm not sure that the people we're talking about would have gone for the demon thing either - would it not have been to suggest that Cecily had been raped by a demon like Merlin's mother?
> And, again, Rous doesn't claim anything actually demonic.
>
> >
>

Marie replies:
That's interesting. Of course it doesn't tell us WHETHER Richard was born with teeth, only WHY Rows might have thought it something he could use against him.
It's similar to the deformity argument in a way, isn't it? The Tudors obviously used the idea of Richard's deformity to prove he had a deformed soul, and thus the entire idea has been dismissed by some Ricardians as a slander.
But that always left me uneasy. If it had been normal for chroniclers to claim that the dead foes of the enemy regime were all deformed then I would have seen it as just a trope, but there was evidently something about Richard's case that made it possible. Disability, unusual physical traits, etc, do not of course tell you anything at all about a person's character, so we have no need to play along with this particular game by denial at all cost. All we can say is that Richard was not so disabled as to be unable to fight, and fight well, on foot and on horse.
It is a year or two since I first put forward on this forum the idea that Rows might have been drawing on facts, and in particular that Richard may indeed have had a raised right shoulder. Not well received on the whole, except by Katy, but here we have the Greyfriars skeleton....
And there I think I must really leave it now until the results are in.

--- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@...> wrote:
>
> I know the same "Auberglaube" from germany, that it was believed that a child born with teeth was obsessed by a demon. But I guess this was rather caused by the fact that a baby with teeth gave it´s mother pain while drinking.
>
> Did also a research and found other sayings: that a child born with teeth was thought to become selfish. In various parts it was also important how many natal teeth a child had, and so the number had different meanings.
>
> Usually it meant to be "unlucky".
>
> Marion Z
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.
> >
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > Never heard of that so tried googling it and haven't come up with any reference. The point about a changeling was that it was swapped with the real baby sometime after birth, so the suspicion grew out of failure to thrive or something of that sort. And probably not something the upper classes would claim a belief in.
> > I'm not sure that the people we're talking about would have gone for the demon thing either - would it not have been to suggest that Cecily had been raped by a demon like Merlin's mother?
> > And, again, Rous doesn't claim anything actually demonic.
> >
> > >
> >
>

And let's not forget this was written after Bosworth when before Rous had written lauditory pages about the king!
Must make things ghastly to please the new king and get in with him, making him forget what I wrote earlier!
Paul


On 5 Dec 2012, at 19:37, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not have been based on fact after all.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>>
>> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.
>>
>> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Carol earlier:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
>>>>>
>>>> Marie responded"
>>>>> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
>>>>
>>>> Carol again:
>>>>
>>>> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
>>>>
>>>> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
>>>> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
>>>> And so I was; which plainly signified
>>>> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

What is the source of the thinking that Rous , in his vilification of Richard, was attempting to get poor young Warwick freed which has been mentioned on here a couple of times ...which as we know didnt happen? Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And let's not forget this was written after Bosworth when before Rous had written lauditory pages about the king!
> Must make things ghastly to please the new king and get in with him, making him forget what I wrote earlier!
> Paul
>
>
> On 5 Dec 2012, at 19:37, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not have been based on fact after all.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.
> >>
> >> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> >>> Marie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Carol earlier:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Marie responded"
> >>>>> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
> >>>>
> >>>> Carol again:
> >>>>
> >>>> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> >>>> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> >>>> And so I was; which plainly signified
> >>>> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> >>>>
> >>>> Carol
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

> Marie replies:
> That's interesting. Of course it doesn't tell us WHETHER Richard was born with teeth, only WHY Rows might have thought it something he could use against him.

Hmm, well I am no dentist but couldn´t there be some evidence on the skull (when it is proven to be Richard III)? I was not born with natal teeth but I had my full set of teeth when I was four which was problematic because the "lasting" teeth followed also sooner as usual and the jaw wasn´t yet grown to full size. The result was that they were not as streight as one could wish, today they are alright but it took quite a while.
As one dentist once put it "teeth (and the jaw) tell a lot about one´s life".

Marion Z
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Marie replies:
> That's interesting. Of course it doesn't tell us WHETHER Richard was born with teeth, only WHY Rows might have thought it something he could use against him.
> It's similar to the deformity argument in a way, isn't it? The Tudors obviously used the idea of Richard's deformity to prove he had a deformed soul, and thus the entire idea has been dismissed by some Ricardians as a slander.
> But that always left me uneasy. If it had been normal for chroniclers to claim that the dead foes of the enemy regime were all deformed then I would have seen it as just a trope, but there was evidently something about Richard's case that made it possible. Disability, unusual physical traits, etc, do not of course tell you anything at all about a person's character, so we have no need to play along with this particular game by denial at all cost. All we can say is that Richard was not so disabled as to be unable to fight, and fight well, on foot and on horse.
> It is a year or two since I first put forward on this forum the idea that Rows might have been drawing on facts, and in particular that Richard may indeed have had a raised right shoulder. Not well received on the whole, except by Katy, but here we have the Greyfriars skeleton....
> And there I think I must really leave it now until the results are in.
>
> --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> >
> > I know the same "Auberglaube" from germany, that it was believed that a child born with teeth was obsessed by a demon. But I guess this was rather caused by the fact that a baby with teeth gave it´s mother pain while drinking.
> >
> > Did also a research and found other sayings: that a child born with teeth was thought to become selfish. In various parts it was also important how many natal teeth a child had, and so the number had different meanings.
> >
> > Usually it meant to be "unlucky".
> >
> > Marion Z
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie replies:
> > > Never heard of that so tried googling it and haven't come up with any reference. The point about a changeling was that it was swapped with the real baby sometime after birth, so the suspicion grew out of failure to thrive or something of that sort. And probably not something the upper classes would claim a belief in.
> > > I'm not sure that the people we're talking about would have gone for the demon thing either - would it not have been to suggest that Cecily had been raped by a demon like Merlin's mother?
> > > And, again, Rous doesn't claim anything actually demonic.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I feel its way too much of a coincidence with Rous stating that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other and the remains that have been found also showing signs that the person would have probably had one shoulder slightly higher than the other....so I believe Rous was correct here because I also believe until proved otherwise that these are Richard's remains.

However with regard to the teeth...IF Richard had been born with a couple of natal teeth, because commonsense tells us it is impossible he would have been born with a full set, and if he was born with rather a lot of hair, which is possible, would these facts have been common knowledge remembered 30 years later and after his death. I dont think so.Im sure it is something only close members of the family and the midwives would know about and I can't see that it would be major news. Such things are usually only mentioned now and again in the family when a mum may tell her child they had a couple of teeth/lot of hair.

I think this was maybe just Rous, mentioning the shoulder, warming to his theme and then exaggerating like mad. Still its all very interesting.....Eileen
On 6 Dec 2012, at 17:07, marionziemke wrote:

> > Marie replies:
> > That's interesting. Of course it doesn't tell us WHETHER Richard was born with teeth, only WHY Rows might have thought it something he could use against him.
>
> Hmm, well I am no dentist but couldnýt there be some evidence on the skull (when it is proven to be Richard III)? I was not born with natal teeth but I had my full set of teeth when I was four which was problematic because the "lasting" teeth followed also sooner as usual and the jaw wasnýt yet grown to full size. The result was that they were not as streight as one could wish, today they are alright but it took quite a while.
> As one dentist once put it "teeth (and the jaw) tell a lot about oneýs life".
>
> Marion Z
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > That's interesting. Of course it doesn't tell us WHETHER Richard was born with teeth, only WHY Rows might have thought it something he could use against him.
> > It's similar to the deformity argument in a way, isn't it? The Tudors obviously used the idea of Richard's deformity to prove he had a deformed soul, and thus the entire idea has been dismissed by some Ricardians as a slander.
> > But that always left me uneasy. If it had been normal for chroniclers to claim that the dead foes of the enemy regime were all deformed then I would have seen it as just a trope, but there was evidently something about Richard's case that made it possible. Disability, unusual physical traits, etc, do not of course tell you anything at all about a person's character, so we have no need to play along with this particular game by denial at all cost. All we can say is that Richard was not so disabled as to be unable to fight, and fight well, on foot and on horse.
> > It is a year or two since I first put forward on this forum the idea that Rows might have been drawing on facts, and in particular that Richard may indeed have had a raised right shoulder. Not well received on the whole, except by Katy, but here we have the Greyfriars skeleton....
> > And there I think I must really leave it now until the results are in.
> >
> > --- In , "marionziemke" <marionziemke@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know the same "Auberglaube" from germany, that it was believed that a child born with teeth was obsessed by a demon. But I guess this was rather caused by the fact that a baby with teeth gave itýs mother pain while drinking.
> > >
> > > Did also a research and found other sayings: that a child born with teeth was thought to become selfish. In various parts it was also important how many natal teeth a child had, and so the number had different meanings.
> > >
> > > Usually it meant to be "unlucky".
> > >
> > > Marion Z
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think perhaps we should look at contemporary witchcraft/magic beliefs, because I seem to remember that a child born with excessive hair and teeth was thought at the time (by the common folk anyway) to be a changeling or a demon. Something fiendish and diabolical and unnatural -- something to be feared.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marie replies:
> > > > Never heard of that so tried googling it and haven't come up with any reference. The point about a changeling was that it was swapped with the real baby sometime after birth, so the suspicion grew out of failure to thrive or something of that sort. And probably not something the upper classes would claim a belief in.
> > > > I'm not sure that the people we're talking about would have gone for the demon thing either - would it not have been to suggest that Cecily had been raped by a demon like Merlin's mother?
> > > > And, again, Rous doesn't claim anything actually demonic.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

hi Eileen,

There's no source other than myself - no doubt it will look more authoritative when and there is finally a book of mine on Warwick in which it appears! It was an idea that emerged out of my researches on Warwick, and the book will of course, put the suggestion (it is of course no more than that) in its context.
There is no more authority for it than there is for the conventional Ricardian idea that the old man, who was near the end of his life and had lived for forty years buried away at Guy's Cliff, was suddenly hungry for preferment at court. I agree that he may have been concerned about whether the new owner of Warwick (ie Henry VII) would go on supporting him, but I imagine he would not have wanted much and imagine the Countess could and would have provided for his needs out of the manors the King had left her.
He was keen in his revised work to make out that both Warwick and the Countess had suffered abuse at the hands of Richard III, and that Warwick had not been Richard's final chosen heir. I think this may have been intended to convince Henry that the Countess and her grandson were not his enemies. Whether he had her permission for exactly what he wrote, I don't know.
Anyhow, after evolving this idea I read an article by Martin Lowry called 'John Rous and the Survival of the Neville Circle', and hia view of Rous' motivation is not a million miles from mine, viz:
"It is certain that Rous threw the scattered fragments of his 'Historia regum Anglie' together at the same time, and almost certain that he did so for the same reason - to draw attention to the injustices suffered by his patroness Anne Nevillem and to excite sympathy for her. If directly approached, that objective was bound to involve an attack on the reputation of Richard of Gloucester...." (Viator, 1988, p. 338)
Lowry does see Rous' claims as tongue-in-cheek.
When you read more about Rous as an individual it gets harder to demonise him. Yes, of course he had always in the business of flattering his patrons - no patrons no opportunity to write, or eat - but he was also outspoken on social issues. He gives us a full account of villages in the West Midlands that had disappeared as a result of landlord greed, which he denounced, and the details apparently check out. Lowry says he is our primary source for 15th-century enclosures.
Marie



--- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> What is the source of the thinking that Rous , in his vilification of Richard, was attempting to get poor young Warwick freed which has been mentioned on here a couple of times ...which as we know didnt happen? Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > And let's not forget this was written after Bosworth when before Rous had written lauditory pages about the king!
> > Must make things ghastly to please the new king and get in with him, making him forget what I wrote earlier!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 5 Dec 2012, at 19:37, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not have been based on fact after all.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> > >>> Marie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carol earlier:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Marie responded"
> > >>>>> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carol again:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > >>>> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > >>>> And so I was; which plainly signified
> > >>>> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carol
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

--- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> I feel its way too much of a coincidence with Rous stating that Richard had one shoulder higher than the other and the remains that have been found also showing signs that the person would have probably had one shoulder slightly higher than the other....so I believe Rous was correct here because I also believe until proved otherwise that these are Richard's remains.
>
> However with regard to the teeth...IF Richard had been born with a couple of natal teeth, because commonsense tells us it is impossible he would have been born with a full set, and if he was born with rather a lot of hair, which is possible, would these facts have been common knowledge remembered 30 years later and after his death. I dont think so.Im sure it is something only close members of the family and the midwives would know about and I can't see that it would be major news.

Marie replies:
It probably wouldn't need to be major news. Rous' patron, the Countess of Warwick, was very likely present at Richard's birth. It is Rous himself who tells us that she loved being with and comforting women in childbirth, and she may even have stood godmother to Richard given that cecily had stood godmother to Isabel Neville the year before (if the consanguinity dispensation for Richard and Anne ever turns up we'll be able to answer that question definitively).
Perhaps we should even countenance the possibility that Rous did his "tongue-in-cheek" hatchet job on Richard with the Countess' blessing, for the sake of her poor young grandson. That would give another possible motive for the claim that Richard had been in the womb two years. It may well have been a family joke at the time, but by including it as fact they may have hoped to achieve the impossible balancing act of pleasing the King and convincing him they were on his side, whilst alerting any future readers to the fact that the account was nonsense.



> > Hmm, well I am no dentist but couldn´t there be some evidence on the skull (when it is proven to be Richard III)? I was not born with natal teeth but I had my full set of teeth when I was four which was problematic because the "lasting" teeth followed also sooner as usual and the jaw wasn´t yet grown to full size.


Marie replies:
I'll pass this over to Katy for a definitive answer, but I seem to recall her saying that natal teeth have no roots (indeed, miilk teeth have no roots), and her natal teeth were easily removed with tweezers. If I've got that right, it doesn't sound as though they would have been in contact with the jaw and that there would be any trace on the skeleton.

Thanks Marie....firstly and crickey...I remember a couple of years ago...I was walking around the site of Upper Ditchford a deserted village (there are quite a few around here, Dorn, Upton Wold etc.,) near where I live, with a group of people and I heard someone mention the name Rous but I did not catch what was said because I interrupted to put in my two pennorth regarding Rous. Damn and Blarst...I wish I had listened now as the gentleman concerned was an expert. Makes me wonder if Mr Rous ever visited these parts.

But back to what you were saying...please get this book written....but somewhere in the back of my brain is a faint memory of reading somewhere that Rous may have believed the story that Richard poisoned Anne....which of course would have been another bee in his bonnet re Richard. All interesting stuff. I wonder if the Barton Library has anything about Rous...?

Eileen



--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> hi Eileen,
>
> There's no source other than myself - no doubt it will look more authoritative when and there is finally a book of mine on Warwick in which it appears! It was an idea that emerged out of my researches on Warwick, and the book will of course, put the suggestion (it is of course no more than that) in its context.
> There is no more authority for it than there is for the conventional Ricardian idea that the old man, who was near the end of his life and had lived for forty years buried away at Guy's Cliff, was suddenly hungry for preferment at court. I agree that he may have been concerned about whether the new owner of Warwick (ie Henry VII) would go on supporting him, but I imagine he would not have wanted much and imagine the Countess could and would have provided for his needs out of the manors the King had left her.
> He was keen in his revised work to make out that both Warwick and the Countess had suffered abuse at the hands of Richard III, and that Warwick had not been Richard's final chosen heir. I think this may have been intended to convince Henry that the Countess and her grandson were not his enemies. Whether he had her permission for exactly what he wrote, I don't know.
> Anyhow, after evolving this idea I read an article by Martin Lowry called 'John Rous and the Survival of the Neville Circle', and hia view of Rous' motivation is not a million miles from mine, viz:
> "It is certain that Rous threw the scattered fragments of his 'Historia regum Anglie' together at the same time, and almost certain that he did so for the same reason - to draw attention to the injustices suffered by his patroness Anne Nevillem and to excite sympathy for her. If directly approached, that objective was bound to involve an attack on the reputation of Richard of Gloucester...." (Viator, 1988, p. 338)
> Lowry does see Rous' claims as tongue-in-cheek.
> When you read more about Rous as an individual it gets harder to demonise him. Yes, of course he had always in the business of flattering his patrons - no patrons no opportunity to write, or eat - but he was also outspoken on social issues. He gives us a full account of villages in the West Midlands that had disappeared as a result of landlord greed, which he denounced, and the details apparently check out. Lowry says he is our primary source for 15th-century enclosures.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > What is the source of the thinking that Rous , in his vilification of Richard, was attempting to get poor young Warwick freed which has been mentioned on here a couple of times ...which as we know didnt happen? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And let's not forget this was written after Bosworth when before Rous had written lauditory pages about the king!
> > > Must make things ghastly to please the new king and get in with him, making him forget what I wrote earlier!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 Dec 2012, at 19:37, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not have been based on fact after all.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness. Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows' "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars skeleton.
> > > >>> Marie
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Carol earlier:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Marie responded"
> > > >>>>> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it says?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Carol again:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so. "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a full set:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > > >>>> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > > >>>> And so I was; which plainly signified
> > > >>>> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Carol
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Marie wrote:
> <snip> It may well have been a family joke at the time, but by including it as fact they may have hoped to achieve the impossible balancing act of pleasing the King and convincing him they were on his side, whilst alerting any future readers to the fact that the account was nonsense.

Carol responds:

If that was their intention, they certainly failed, at least with regard to alerting future readers that it was all nonsense. Look at us debating it even now!

Marie wrote:
> I'll pass this over to Katy for a definitive answer, but I seem to recall her saying that natal teeth have no roots (indeed, milk teeth have no roots), and her natal teeth were easily removed with tweezers. If I've got that right, it doesn't sound as though they would have been in contact with the jaw and that there would be any trace on the skeleton.

Carol responds:

I'm not a dentist, of course, but I did a tiny bit of research on this topic. Evidently, some natal teeth do have roots. Those likely to fall out on their own are generally pulled to keep the baby from choking on them. (I'm not sure whether a nursing mother's comfort is also considered!) Apparently, in some cases, the natal teeth are just "extra," and the baby teeth (milk teeth) come in after them as if they weren't there, but in other cases, they should not be pulled because they have roots and *are* the baby teeth. (Here's the case of a baby girl born with seven teeth!): http://growingyourbaby.blogspot.com/2007/07/baby-born-with-teeth.html

Also, baby teeth (milk teeth) do have roots. The roots "resorb" when it's time for the teeth to fall out. That's why when a child pulls a loose tooth, there's no root left. But if the teeth had no roots to begin with, they'd be loose from the time they came in. http://www.deardoctor.com/articles/root-canal-treatment-for-children/

However, we will probably never know whether any of this relates to Richard. What we do need to know, I think, is whether the midwives would have reacted as they do in Shakespeare.

It certainly doesn't appear that Cecily thought that her youngest son was a prodigy of evil. She was as concerned for his safety as for George's when she sent them both to Burgundy.

Your idea that the Countess of Warwick may have been present at Richard's birth is possible but just speculation. (The one instance that I know of where the countess served as midwife turned out tragically--the stillbirth of Isabel's first child--but, of course, the countess can't be blamed for that terrible experience. Some of the men, yes.)

As for me, I remain unconvinced by your interesting theories.

Carol
>

I doubt the Countess of Warwick would have had hesitated much to see Richard
written about uncharitably, for whatever reason. Or to support the writer
(and the prior connection with Rous wouldn't have hurt here). Especially
with her daughter and grandson dead, she could have had little reason to
want to see him praised.

Karen

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:05:45 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought







hi Eileen,

There's no source other than myself - no doubt it will look more
authoritative when and there is finally a book of mine on Warwick in which
it appears! It was an idea that emerged out of my researches on Warwick, and
the book will of course, put the suggestion (it is of course no more than
that) in its context.
There is no more authority for it than there is for the conventional
Ricardian idea that the old man, who was near the end of his life and had
lived for forty years buried away at Guy's Cliff, was suddenly hungry for
preferment at court. I agree that he may have been concerned about whether
the new owner of Warwick (ie Henry VII) would go on supporting him, but I
imagine he would not have wanted much and imagine the Countess could and
would have provided for his needs out of the manors the King had left her.
He was keen in his revised work to make out that both Warwick and the
Countess had suffered abuse at the hands of Richard III, and that Warwick
had not been Richard's final chosen heir. I think this may have been
intended to convince Henry that the Countess and her grandson were not his
enemies. Whether he had her permission for exactly what he wrote, I don't
know.
Anyhow, after evolving this idea I read an article by Martin Lowry called
'John Rous and the Survival of the Neville Circle', and hia view of Rous'
motivation is not a million miles from mine, viz:
"It is certain that Rous threw the scattered fragments of his 'Historia
regum Anglie' together at the same time, and almost certain that he did so
for the same reason - to draw attention to the injustices suffered by his
patroness Anne Nevillem and to excite sympathy for her. If directly
approached, that objective was bound to involve an attack on the reputation
of Richard of Gloucester...." (Viator, 1988, p. 338)
Lowry does see Rous' claims as tongue-in-cheek.
When you read more about Rous as an individual it gets harder to demonise
him. Yes, of course he had always in the business of flattering his patrons
- no patrons no opportunity to write, or eat - but he was also outspoken on
social issues. He gives us a full account of villages in the West Midlands
that had disappeared as a result of landlord greed, which he denounced, and
the details apparently check out. Lowry says he is our primary source for
15th-century enclosures.
Marie

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
<b.eileen25@...> wrote:
>
> What is the source of the thinking that Rous , in his vilification of Richard,
was attempting to get poor young Warwick freed which has been mentioned on here
a couple of times ...which as we know didnt happen? Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > And let's not forget this was written after Bosworth when before Rous had
written lauditory pages about the king!
> > Must make things ghastly to please the new king and get in with him, making
him forget what I wrote earlier!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 5 Dec 2012, at 19:37, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having
said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that
impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they
looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not
have been based on fact after all.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland"
<mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set
of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking
like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had
hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness.
Maire.
> > >>
> > >> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent
sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows'
"cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was
making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to
something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think
this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard
should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars
skeleton.
> > >>> Marie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carol earlier:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take
"born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Marie responded"
> > >>>>> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it
says?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carol again:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so.
"Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an
eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a
full set:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > >>>> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > >>>> And so I was; which plainly signified
> > >>>> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Carol
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I doubt the Countess of Warwick would have had hesitated much to see Richard
> written about uncharitably, for whatever reason. Or to support the writer
> (and the prior connection with Rous wouldn't have hurt here). Especially with her daughter and grandson dead, she could have had little reason to want to see him praised.
>
> Karen

Carol responds:

He had been her son-in-law and seems to have treated her as fairly and generously as possible (and treated her daughter very well), not to mention that she had more or less reared him as a boy. I suspect that it wasn't so much hostility to Richard as fears for her other grandchildren (Margaret and, especially Edward) and (vain) hopes of regaining her lands that caused any seeming hostility to Richard (of which we actually have no proof). Her petition to have her lands returned mentions her continued affection for Henry *VI,* which is quite a different matter from affection for the pseudo-Lancastrian Henry VII.

On a side note, if Anne Neville and Edward of Middleham had survived, I think it's unlikely that Richard would have charged down that hill at Bosworth, and she would have had no reason to petition the Tudor or hope for his sympathy. (She was certainly looking for sympathy in the wrong place, especially with regard to poor Edward of Warwick!)

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > <snip> It may well have been a family joke at the time, but by including it as fact they may have hoped to achieve the impossible balancing act of pleasing the King and convincing him they were on his side, whilst alerting any future readers to the fact that the account was nonsense.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If that was their intention, they certainly failed, at least with regard to alerting future readers that it was all nonsense. Look at us debating it even now!


Maruie:
Well, indeed. Whether Rous and the Countess were trying to get her and Warwick restored to favour, alert readers to the fact that the allegations against Richard were spoof, or get Rous royal patronage - all the underlying motives suggested over the years have that one thing in common: lack of result.



> Your idea that the Countess of Warwick may have been present at Richard's birth is possible but just speculation.


Msrie responds:
I never said it was more than speculation, but I would place it as higher than a "possible" - probable, perhaps. Warwick and Fotheringhay are only 60 miles apart. Nothing about Rous' motivations and the accuracy or otherwise of his claims (except, maybe, the raised right and lowered left shoulders) is anything other than speculation. What seems to me to be inherently unlikely, though, is that Rous - who had never showed an ounce of ambition or wanderlust in his life - suddenly gets bitten by the ambition bug in his mid sixties.

(The one instance that I know of where the countess served as midwife turned out tragically--the stillbirth of Isabel's first child--but, of course, the countess can't be blamed for that terrible experience. Some of the men, yes.)


Marie responds:
I have not suggested that the Countess of Warwick served as Cecily's midwife. A medieval lady would have had more than one trained midwife plus attendants and female "friends" around her during her confinement, and the midwives would have delivered the baby whilst the rest did or said whatever they thought would help.



>
> As for me, I remain unconvinced by your interesting theories.


Marie replies:
Well, of course you do; that's a given. But I would like to think they have given you food for thought. The Rous problem is more complicated than the usual dismissals of him as a lying toady suggest. I think it's important, whatever views we incline to, that we continue to distinguish between what is known and what - however often it hmay have been repeated - is merely an attempt at a best construction based on the available facts. I hope I am not so wedded to my theories on either Rous or anything else that I would fail to take account of any contradictory evidence that may come along in the future.

I imagine she was quite happy for Richard to bypass Warwick to take the throne when Anne and Edward of Middleham were still alive - this was the daughter she had lived with, the grandchild she knew. But I do wonder if, after Edward and Anne's deaths had left Richard alone on the throne looking for a new wife, the bypassing of Warwick didn't start to rankle.
Marie



--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> I doubt the Countess of Warwick would have had hesitated much to see Richard
> written about uncharitably, for whatever reason. Or to support the writer
> (and the prior connection with Rous wouldn't have hurt here). Especially
> with her daughter and grandson dead, she could have had little reason to
> want to see him praised.
>
> Karen
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:05:45 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
> thought
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hi Eileen,
>
> There's no source other than myself - no doubt it will look more
> authoritative when and there is finally a book of mine on Warwick in which
> it appears! It was an idea that emerged out of my researches on Warwick, and
> the book will of course, put the suggestion (it is of course no more than
> that) in its context.
> There is no more authority for it than there is for the conventional
> Ricardian idea that the old man, who was near the end of his life and had
> lived for forty years buried away at Guy's Cliff, was suddenly hungry for
> preferment at court. I agree that he may have been concerned about whether
> the new owner of Warwick (ie Henry VII) would go on supporting him, but I
> imagine he would not have wanted much and imagine the Countess could and
> would have provided for his needs out of the manors the King had left her.
> He was keen in his revised work to make out that both Warwick and the
> Countess had suffered abuse at the hands of Richard III, and that Warwick
> had not been Richard's final chosen heir. I think this may have been
> intended to convince Henry that the Countess and her grandson were not his
> enemies. Whether he had her permission for exactly what he wrote, I don't
> know.
> Anyhow, after evolving this idea I read an article by Martin Lowry called
> 'John Rous and the Survival of the Neville Circle', and hia view of Rous'
> motivation is not a million miles from mine, viz:
> "It is certain that Rous threw the scattered fragments of his 'Historia
> regum Anglie' together at the same time, and almost certain that he did so
> for the same reason - to draw attention to the injustices suffered by his
> patroness Anne Nevillem and to excite sympathy for her. If directly
> approached, that objective was bound to involve an attack on the reputation
> of Richard of Gloucester...." (Viator, 1988, p. 338)
> Lowry does see Rous' claims as tongue-in-cheek.
> When you read more about Rous as an individual it gets harder to demonise
> him. Yes, of course he had always in the business of flattering his patrons
> - no patrons no opportunity to write, or eat - but he was also outspoken on
> social issues. He gives us a full account of villages in the West Midlands
> that had disappeared as a result of landlord greed, which he denounced, and
> the details apparently check out. Lowry says he is our primary source for
> 15th-century enclosures.
> Marie
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB"
> <b.eileen25@> wrote:
> >
> > What is the source of the thinking that Rous , in his vilification of Richard,
> was attempting to get poor young Warwick freed which has been mentioned on here
> a couple of times ...which as we know didnt happen? Eileen
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And let's not forget this was written after Bosworth when before Rous had
> written lauditory pages about the king!
> > > Must make things ghastly to please the new king and get in with him, making
> him forget what I wrote earlier!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5 Dec 2012, at 19:37, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be fair, Maire, I think a lot of writers have presented Rous as having
> said Richard was born with a full set of teeth, and I like most people had that
> impression until I read the original and extrapolated the actual claims - they
> looked so lame set down baldly that I began to wonder whether they might not
> have been based on fact after all.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland"
> <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I certainly always took it to mean that Richard was born with a full set
> of teeth - not even baby teeth but a full set of adult choppers! Sorta looking
> like those American troll dolls that were popular in the 1960s. (They also had
> hair to their shoulders.) Of course, I never believed any of this silliness.
> Maire.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Yes, Carol, it was spin like I said - making something quite innocent
> sound dreadful without actually lying. All we can honestly say is that Rows'
> "cum dentibus" didn't mean just one tooth. You could - if you believe Rows was
> making up tall stories - more reasoanbly argue that if he was referring to
> something as extraordinary as a full set he would have spelled it out. I think
> this whole discussion about what Rows was up to with his description of Riochard
> should now be shelved until we get the results from the study of the Greyfriars
> skeleton.
> > > >>> Marie
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Carol earlier:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The reason I said two-year-old is that Rous's description (if we take
> "born with teeth" to mean a full set of teeth)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> Marie responded"
> > > >>>>> Why should we assume that is what it means when that is not what it
> says?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Carol again:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Because if he had meant "born with two teeth," he would have said so.
> "Born with teeth" suggests a full set (or at least the eight or so teeth that an
> eleven-month-old would have). Shakespeare certainly interpreted it as being a
> full set:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> "The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
> > > >>>> 'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
> > > >>>> And so I was; which plainly signified
> > > >>>> That I should snarl and bite and play the dog."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I suspect that that's exactly the reaction Rous was after.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Carol
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:
> On a side note, if Anne Neville and Edward of Middleham had survived, I think it's unlikely that Richard would have charged down that hill at Bosworth, and she would have had no reason to petition the Tudor or hope for his sympathy. (She was certainly looking for sympathy in the wrong place, especially with regard to poor Edward of Warwick!)
>

Marie responds:
I agree there. To me the Countess comes across as VERY aware of her rights and her sufferings, but with not a great deal of political nowse. Her petition to Edward's parliament was not, in my view, very clever - she would have done better to have grovelled and said sorry. Similarly with Henry VII. Her petition to his first parliament was described as "piteous" or something like it, and she clearly had no idea of the sort of man she was dealing with when she asked not only for Anne Neville's share of the estates but also for that which by this time was vested in the Earl of Warwick. Within a couple of months of her resitituion King Henry had found a way of making her hand the whole lot to him. The lady as out of her depth.

Carol

I don''t particularly want to dredge this discussion up again, but trying to
look at things from the countess's pov, I can't see her thinking that
Richard's treatment of her was either fair or generous. Her earlier
connection to him as young man would have made any anger she felt towards
him worse. She needn't have been particularly fond of Henry VII, either, but
the fact that she petitioned to have her lands returned to her suggests
strongly that she hadn't forgotten how they were taken from her or who by.
While I don't buy PG's view of her locked away in a tower and forgotten, I
do think she was probably quite bitter and, no doubt, felt great
humiliation. Whatever Rous's motives for writing about Richard as he did,
his main loyalty was towards her and he'd not have written it so strongly if
she had any objections. She was married to one of the great propagandists of
her time (for York, Edward, Clarence and Lancaster in turn) and probably
picked up a thing or two!

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:51:38 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: available research pamplets.. a
thought






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I doubt the Countess of Warwick would have had hesitated much to see Richard
> written about uncharitably, for whatever reason. Or to support the writer
> (and the prior connection with Rous wouldn't have hurt here). Especially with
her daughter and grandson dead, she could have had little reason to want to see
him praised.
>
> Karen

Carol responds:

He had been her son-in-law and seems to have treated her as fairly and
generously as possible (and treated her daughter very well), not to mention
that she had more or less reared him as a boy. I suspect that it wasn't so
much hostility to Richard as fears for her other grandchildren (Margaret
and, especially Edward) and (vain) hopes of regaining her lands that caused
any seeming hostility to Richard (of which we actually have no proof). Her
petition to have her lands returned mentions her continued affection for
Henry *VI,* which is quite a different matter from affection for the
pseudo-Lancastrian Henry VII.

On a side note, if Anne Neville and Edward of Middleham had survived, I
think it's unlikely that Richard would have charged down that hill at
Bosworth, and she would have had no reason to petition the Tudor or hope for
his sympathy. (She was certainly looking for sympathy in the wrong place,
especially with regard to poor Edward of Warwick!)

Carol

Not sure if this has been mentioned in any earlier postings recently, if it has please ignore.

Regards,

Neil

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

Leicester City Council buys the site of its Richard III centre for £ 850,000

Trusted article source icon

Monday, December 03, 2012

Profile image for Leicester Mercury

Leicester Mercury


By Peter Warzynski

Leicester City Council has spent £850,000 on a building it hopes to turn into a Richard III visitor centre.

City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby yesterday gave the go-ahead to buy the freehold of St Martin's Place  part of the former Leicester Grammar School, in New Street.

1. ?Richard III

Richard III

The vacant Victorian building is a few hundred yards from the city council car park where the suspected remains of the last Plantagenet king were discovered earlier this autumn.

The building could be converted into a historic homage to Richard III if the remains are identified as his.

Sir Peter said: "It's very evident that St Martin's Place is a building that has potential to be used for a number of purposes.

"It is particularly of interest because it's immediately adjacent to the excavation site and also to our social services offices.

"Some of those offices are more suited to continue as offices than others, so I am convinced this is an investment worth making."

The 10,000sq ft neo-Gothic building was home to Leicester Grammar School until 2008 and stands near to Leicester Cathedral, where campaigners want the remains interred if they are confirmed as those of Richard III.

University of Leicester academics are carrying out DNA tests on the skeleton.

Experts will use the results in conjunction with other clues, such as the battle scars, the burial site and facial reconstruction to determine whether or not they have unearthed the 500-year-old king, who was slain at the Battle of Bosworth.

Richard Buckley, co-director of the university's archaeology service, welcomed news of a visitors' centre.

He said: "It sounds like a really good idea which will be a fantastic resource for Leicester and it will help people learn about the city's medieval history.

"It will certainly be popular. We have been quite busy giving talks to local groups about the dig, and we've had huge crowds visiting the site itself.

"Anything which helps the public to understand the city's history will not be wasted."

Martin Traynor, chief executive of Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce, said: "My view is that this is an excellent strategic purchase

"The mayor has recognised the importance of what Richard III can do for the visitor numbers to our city, and the economic impact that can have on leisure and tourism."

The results of the DNA testing and facial reconstruction of the remains will be revealed in the new year.



>