Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result
Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result
2013-02-03 19:52:56
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
>
> For the most part it’s a pretty good article. [snip]
>
> I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,†she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€
>
> That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it “proves†More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
Carol responds:
I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
"[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
"There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
Carol
> Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
>
> For the most part it’s a pretty good article. [snip]
>
> I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,†she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€
>
> That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it “proves†More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
Carol responds:
I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
"[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
"There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:10:25
But surely...if Richard's "detractors" had the sense of a cartload of monkeys they surely to God must realise that someone with a hunchback could not wear armour, ride a horse and wield a battleaxe. In fact how many people nowadays have ever actually laid eyes on a hunchback? hmmmm........I did once when I was a little girl..the poor man ..thankfully I have never seen someone suffering from this awful condition since...because it was an awful sight and one which I found disturbing...that poor poor man...Are we really going to let people worry us who are going around...mostly online...dishing out this complete and utter tripe? Because you will never stop them....that is what they get off on....causing uproar and controversy....They probably al live very boring lives...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> however:
>
> > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,†she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€
> >
> > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*)
> I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> however:
>
> > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,†she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€
> >
> > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*)
> I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true.
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:25:07
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> But surely...if Richard's "detractors" had the sense of a cartload of monkeys they surely to God must realise that someone with a hunchback could not wear armour, ride a horse and wield a battleaxe. In fact how many people nowadays have ever actually laid eyes on a hunchback? hmmmm........I did once when I was a little girl..the poor man ..thankfully I have never seen someone suffering from this awful condition since...because it was an awful sight and one which I found disturbing...that poor poor man...Are we really going to let people worry us who are going around...mostly online...dishing out this complete and utter tripe? Because you will never stop them....that is what they get off on....causing uproar and controversy....They probably al live very boring lives...Eileen
Carol responds:
Eileen, it's Lin Foxhall's equating scoliosis with a hunchback that disturbs me, especially given her earlier position. But I recently read an article which said that very few of the things we worry about turn out to be true, so I'll give her the benefit of a doubt for the moment and hope that she reiterates her former position on the program. Meanwhile, instead of feeling excitement or anxiety, I'm merely wishing that I could see the documentary and hopping that the BBC evening news (recorded, probably, much earlier in the day but aired at 6 p.m.) or CNN will say *something* about the test results and the facial reconstruction. I'll also be watching CBS This Morning just in case they plan to retract their earlier amused comments regarding Richard or apologize for taking Philippa Langley's remarks out of context. Sigh. A feast for those of you in the UK, the hope of a few crumbs for everyone else.
Carol
>
> But surely...if Richard's "detractors" had the sense of a cartload of monkeys they surely to God must realise that someone with a hunchback could not wear armour, ride a horse and wield a battleaxe. In fact how many people nowadays have ever actually laid eyes on a hunchback? hmmmm........I did once when I was a little girl..the poor man ..thankfully I have never seen someone suffering from this awful condition since...because it was an awful sight and one which I found disturbing...that poor poor man...Are we really going to let people worry us who are going around...mostly online...dishing out this complete and utter tripe? Because you will never stop them....that is what they get off on....causing uproar and controversy....They probably al live very boring lives...Eileen
Carol responds:
Eileen, it's Lin Foxhall's equating scoliosis with a hunchback that disturbs me, especially given her earlier position. But I recently read an article which said that very few of the things we worry about turn out to be true, so I'll give her the benefit of a doubt for the moment and hope that she reiterates her former position on the program. Meanwhile, instead of feeling excitement or anxiety, I'm merely wishing that I could see the documentary and hopping that the BBC evening news (recorded, probably, much earlier in the day but aired at 6 p.m.) or CNN will say *something* about the test results and the facial reconstruction. I'll also be watching CBS This Morning just in case they plan to retract their earlier amused comments regarding Richard or apologize for taking Philippa Langley's remarks out of context. Sigh. A feast for those of you in the UK, the hope of a few crumbs for everyone else.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:43:13
Dear Carol
I agree with most of what you're saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall's quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she's losing patience. Just a thought.
Regarding the crookback thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard's demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I'm sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard's being buried in a dyke is not material I think it's fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition don't know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don't say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau's, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard's. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of severe scoliosis could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
>
> For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
>
> I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
>
> That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
Carol responds:
I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
"[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
"There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
Carol
I agree with most of what you're saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall's quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she's losing patience. Just a thought.
Regarding the crookback thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard's demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I'm sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard's being buried in a dyke is not material I think it's fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition don't know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don't say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau's, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard's. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of severe scoliosis could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 3:53 PM
To:
Subject: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Johanne Tournier wrote:
> Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
>
> For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
>
> I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
>
> That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
Carol responds:
I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
"[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
"There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:45:31
Carol said:
Eileen, it's Lin Foxhall's equating scoliosis with a hunchback that disturbs me
Liz said:
But I don't think that is what she intends to say. I do however think the statement is, unfortunately, ambiguous.
"One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis."
Surely what she means is that many Ricardians didn't think he had any kind of disability and now obviously, he did. There are, I think, some Ricardians who don't like that idea at all. Equally, the anti Ricardians will use this as an excuse to say "well they were right, he did have a hump" which is what the popular press are still saying. Hopefully she will revert to a far more unambiguous statement like the one she made at the beginning, not that it seems to have done much good.
To be honest, regrettably I think many people will always think that he did. Personally I think that would make him even more remarkable if it was true.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 20:25
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> But surely...if Richard's "detractors" had the sense of a cartload of monkeys they surely to God must realise that someone with a hunchback could not wear armour, ride a horse and wield a battleaxe. In fact how many people nowadays have ever actually laid eyes on a hunchback? hmmmm........I did once when I was a little girl..the poor man ..thankfully I have never seen someone suffering from this awful condition since...because it was an awful sight and one which I found disturbing...that poor poor man...Are we really going to let people worry us who are going around...mostly online...dishing out this complete and utter tripe? Because you will never stop them....that is what they get off on....causing uproar and controversy....They probably al live very boring lives...Eileen
Carol responds:
Eileen, it's Lin Foxhall's equating scoliosis with a hunchback that disturbs me, especially given her earlier position. But I recently read an article which said that very few of the things we worry about turn out to be true, so I'll give her the benefit of a doubt for the moment and hope that she reiterates her former position on the program. Meanwhile, instead of feeling excitement or anxiety, I'm merely wishing that I could see the documentary and hopping that the BBC evening news (recorded, probably, much earlier in the day but aired at 6 p.m.) or CNN will say *something* about the test results and the facial reconstruction. I'll also be watching CBS This Morning just in case they plan to retract their earlier amused comments regarding Richard or apologize for taking Philippa Langley's remarks out of context. Sigh. A feast for those of you in the UK, the hope of a few crumbs for everyone else.
Carol
Eileen, it's Lin Foxhall's equating scoliosis with a hunchback that disturbs me
Liz said:
But I don't think that is what she intends to say. I do however think the statement is, unfortunately, ambiguous.
"One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis."
Surely what she means is that many Ricardians didn't think he had any kind of disability and now obviously, he did. There are, I think, some Ricardians who don't like that idea at all. Equally, the anti Ricardians will use this as an excuse to say "well they were right, he did have a hump" which is what the popular press are still saying. Hopefully she will revert to a far more unambiguous statement like the one she made at the beginning, not that it seems to have done much good.
To be honest, regrettably I think many people will always think that he did. Personally I think that would make him even more remarkable if it was true.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 20:25
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> But surely...if Richard's "detractors" had the sense of a cartload of monkeys they surely to God must realise that someone with a hunchback could not wear armour, ride a horse and wield a battleaxe. In fact how many people nowadays have ever actually laid eyes on a hunchback? hmmmm........I did once when I was a little girl..the poor man ..thankfully I have never seen someone suffering from this awful condition since...because it was an awful sight and one which I found disturbing...that poor poor man...Are we really going to let people worry us who are going around...mostly online...dishing out this complete and utter tripe? Because you will never stop them....that is what they get off on....causing uproar and controversy....They probably al live very boring lives...Eileen
Carol responds:
Eileen, it's Lin Foxhall's equating scoliosis with a hunchback that disturbs me, especially given her earlier position. But I recently read an article which said that very few of the things we worry about turn out to be true, so I'll give her the benefit of a doubt for the moment and hope that she reiterates her former position on the program. Meanwhile, instead of feeling excitement or anxiety, I'm merely wishing that I could see the documentary and hopping that the BBC evening news (recorded, probably, much earlier in the day but aired at 6 p.m.) or CNN will say *something* about the test results and the facial reconstruction. I'll also be watching CBS This Morning just in case they plan to retract their earlier amused comments regarding Richard or apologize for taking Philippa Langley's remarks out of context. Sigh. A feast for those of you in the UK, the hope of a few crumbs for everyone else.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:48:56
Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> >
> > For the most part it’s a pretty good article. [snip]
> >
> > I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
>
> > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,†she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€
> >
> > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it “proves†More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
>
> "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
>
> "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
>
> I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
>
> So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
>
> At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
>
> BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
>
> Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
>
> Carol
>
Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> > Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> >
> > For the most part it’s a pretty good article. [snip]
> >
> > I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
>
> > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. “It could be quite shattering,†she says. “One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€
> >
> > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it “proves†More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
>
> "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
>
> "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
>
> I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
>
> So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
>
> At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
>
> BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
>
> Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:53:44
Too many of those fools out there!
Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > >
> > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > >
> > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> >
> > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > >
> > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> >
> > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> >
> > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> >
> > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> >
> > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> >
> > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> >
> > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> >
> > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > >
> > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > >
> > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> >
> > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > >
> > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> >
> > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> >
> > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> >
> > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> >
> > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> >
> > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> >
> > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> >
> > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 20:56:35
But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Too many of those fools out there!
Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > >
> > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > >
> > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> >
> > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > >
> > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> >
> > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> >
> > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> >
> > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> >
> > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> >
> > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> >
> > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> >
> > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Too many of those fools out there!
Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > >
> > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > >
> > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> >
> > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > >
> > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> >
> > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> >
> > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> >
> > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> >
> > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> >
> > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> >
> > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> >
> > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> >
> > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:11:40
Pamela, lol!
CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:12:51
Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:14:10
Someone should I agree!
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Pamela, lol!
CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ýin the knowý!
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereýýýs the URL for the article and a tinyurl ýý"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itýýýs a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnýýýt too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. ýýýIt could be quite shattering,ýýý she says. ýýýOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.ýýý
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnýýýt a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnýýýt that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it ýýýprovesýýý More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:11 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
Pamela, lol!
CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ýin the knowý!
>
> ________________________________
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereýýýs the URL for the article and a tinyurl ýý"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itýýýs a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnýýýt too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. ýýýIt could be quite shattering,ýýý she says. ýýýOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.ýýý
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnýýýt a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnýýýt that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it ýýýprovesýýý More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:15:30
Even if he ends up having had severe scoliosis, the curvature of his spine might mean only that he couldn't sit as straight in the saddle as could a rider without it. A true hunchback could not ride in balance with his mount and would likely be punted over the horse's head the first time he took a jump.
The curvature of his spine may have meant he had back pain starting at a young age after a hard day's riding or fighting. It might mean one leg was slightly shorter than the other, but that it wasn't noticeable when he walked. It might have been something that would have gotten worse with age (as in deterioration of the spine or the spacers between each vertebrae), but didn't get the chance to do so.
The fact that he was capable of being trained as a knight, campaigning and fighting from age 17 to 33 in weather that wasn't all sunshine and butterflies, and died swinging a battle axe against a foe much bigger than him pretty much speaks for itself and very much against the warbling Tudor propaganda.
Grief, but I wish historians would line the reality of his actions up against the myth, because the physical facts of his service do not support the myth.
And I hope to heck when they line his bony spine up against his actions in that documentary, they'll point out that...wow, look at that, gee whiz kids, I guess Warwick was right to let the kid finish his training at Middleham and not inform his brother the king that little Dickon wasn't able to physically withstand the training and should become an archbishop instead. So sad, too bad, but it's his back, you see....
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
The curvature of his spine may have meant he had back pain starting at a young age after a hard day's riding or fighting. It might mean one leg was slightly shorter than the other, but that it wasn't noticeable when he walked. It might have been something that would have gotten worse with age (as in deterioration of the spine or the spacers between each vertebrae), but didn't get the chance to do so.
The fact that he was capable of being trained as a knight, campaigning and fighting from age 17 to 33 in weather that wasn't all sunshine and butterflies, and died swinging a battle axe against a foe much bigger than him pretty much speaks for itself and very much against the warbling Tudor propaganda.
Grief, but I wish historians would line the reality of his actions up against the myth, because the physical facts of his service do not support the myth.
And I hope to heck when they line his bony spine up against his actions in that documentary, they'll point out that...wow, look at that, gee whiz kids, I guess Warwick was right to let the kid finish his training at Middleham and not inform his brother the king that little Dickon wasn't able to physically withstand the training and should become an archbishop instead. So sad, too bad, but it's his back, you see....
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:18:18
Its going to start at 10 a.m. Hey...no matter what part of the world you are in you should be able to log on the website and watch the conference....I guess the time will be the problem depending on what part of the world you are in...Eileen
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ‘in the knowâ€!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part it’s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â€Å"It could be quite shattering,†she says. â€Å"One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€Â
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â€Å"proves†More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ‘in the knowâ€!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here’s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â€"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part it’s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn’t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â€Å"It could be quite shattering,†she says. â€Å"One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â€Â
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasn’t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightn’t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â€Å"proves†More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:22:29
Absolutely, that was my point earlier. He was a man of remarkable accomplishments. My mother's scoliosis has worsened with age, so that at 86, one leg is shorter. However, she did not ride nor wear armor, unless you count a girdle!!!!!
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Even if he ends up having had severe scoliosis, the curvature of his spine might mean only that he couldn't sit as straight in the saddle as could a rider without it. A true hunchback could not ride in balance with his mount and would likely be punted over the horse's head the first time he took a jump.
The curvature of his spine may have meant he had back pain starting at a young age after a hard day's riding or fighting. It might mean one leg was slightly shorter than the other, but that it wasn't noticeable when he walked. It might have been something that would have gotten worse with age (as in deterioration of the spine or the spacers between each vertebrae), but didn't get the chance to do so.
The fact that he was capable of being trained as a knight, campaigning and fighting from age 17 to 33 in weather that wasn't all sunshine and butterflies, and died swinging a battle axe against a foe much bigger than him pretty much speaks for itself and very much against the warbling Tudor propaganda.
Grief, but I wish historians would line the reality of his actions up against the myth, because the physical facts of his service do not support the myth.
And I hope to heck when they line his bony spine up against his actions in that documentary, they'll point out that...wow, look at that, gee whiz kids, I guess Warwick was right to let the kid finish his training at Middleham and not inform his brother the king that little Dickon wasn't able to physically withstand the training and should become an archbishop instead. So sad, too bad, but it's his back, you see....
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Even if he ends up having had severe scoliosis, the curvature of his spine might mean only that he couldn't sit as straight in the saddle as could a rider without it. A true hunchback could not ride in balance with his mount and would likely be punted over the horse's head the first time he took a jump.
The curvature of his spine may have meant he had back pain starting at a young age after a hard day's riding or fighting. It might mean one leg was slightly shorter than the other, but that it wasn't noticeable when he walked. It might have been something that would have gotten worse with age (as in deterioration of the spine or the spacers between each vertebrae), but didn't get the chance to do so.
The fact that he was capable of being trained as a knight, campaigning and fighting from age 17 to 33 in weather that wasn't all sunshine and butterflies, and died swinging a battle axe against a foe much bigger than him pretty much speaks for itself and very much against the warbling Tudor propaganda.
Grief, but I wish historians would line the reality of his actions up against the myth, because the physical facts of his service do not support the myth.
And I hope to heck when they line his bony spine up against his actions in that documentary, they'll point out that...wow, look at that, gee whiz kids, I guess Warwick was right to let the kid finish his training at Middleham and not inform his brother the king that little Dickon wasn't able to physically withstand the training and should become an archbishop instead. So sad, too bad, but it's his back, you see....
~Weds
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:26:47
This is the Leicester Uni link for the conference: www.le.ac.uk/
Jacq
To:
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:18:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Its going to start at 10 a.m. Hey...no matter what part of the world you are in you should be able to log on the website and watch the conference....I guess the time will be the problem depending on what part of the world you are in...Eileen
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ýýýin the knowýýý!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hereýýýýýýýýs the URL for the article and a tinyurl ýýýýý"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part itýýýýýýýýs a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasnýýýýýýýýt too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. ýýýýýý"It could be quite shattering,ýýýýýýý she says. ýýýýýý"One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.ýýýýýýý
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnýýýýýýýýt a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnýýýýýýýýt that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it ýýýýýý"provesýýýýýýý More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Jacq
To:
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:18:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Its going to start at 10 a.m. Hey...no matter what part of the world you are in you should be able to log on the website and watch the conference....I guess the time will be the problem depending on what part of the world you are in...Eileen
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ýýýin the knowýýý!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hereýýýýýýýýs the URL for the article and a tinyurl ýýýýý"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part itýýýýýýýýs a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasnýýýýýýýýt too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. ýýýýýý"It could be quite shattering,ýýýýýýý she says. ýýýýýý"One popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.ýýýýýýý
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnýýýýýýýýt a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnýýýýýýýýt that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it ýýýýýý"provesýýýýýýý More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:28:30
I think they said 10.00 - I am hoping to be out of my meeting but presumably any who gets up early enough can also watch it on the University website.
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 21:12
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
>
> ________________________________
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 21:12
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
>
> ________________________________
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
>
>
> Too many of those fools out there!
> Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > >
> > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > >
> > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > >
> > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > >
> > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > >
> > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > >
> > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > >
> > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > >
> > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > >
> > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > >
> > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > >
> > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:33:16
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Dear Carol â€"
> I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
> Regarding the “crookback†thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
>
> Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of “severe scoliosis†could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
Carol responds:
Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
Carol
>
> Dear Carol â€"
> I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
> Regarding the “crookback†thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
>
> Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of “severe scoliosis†could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
Carol responds:
Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:57:21
Weds, right on!!
I am still afraid, though.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Even if he ends up having had severe scoliosis, the curvature of his spine might mean only that he couldn't sit as straight in the saddle as could a rider without it. A true hunchback could not ride in balance with his mount and would likely be punted over the horse's head the first time he took a jump.
>
> The curvature of his spine may have meant he had back pain starting at a young age after a hard day's riding or fighting. It might mean one leg was slightly shorter than the other, but that it wasn't noticeable when he walked. It might have been something that would have gotten worse with age (as in deterioration of the spine or the spacers between each vertebrae), but didn't get the chance to do so.
>
> The fact that he was capable of being trained as a knight, campaigning and fighting from age 17 to 33 in weather that wasn't all sunshine and butterflies, and died swinging a battle axe against a foe much bigger than him pretty much speaks for itself and very much against the warbling Tudor propaganda.
>
> Grief, but I wish historians would line the reality of his actions up against the myth, because the physical facts of his service do not support the myth.
>
> And I hope to heck when they line his bony spine up against his actions in that documentary, they'll point out that...wow, look at that, gee whiz kids, I guess Warwick was right to let the kid finish his training at Middleham and not inform his brother the king that little Dickon wasn't able to physically withstand the training and should become an archbishop instead. So sad, too bad, but it's his back, you see....
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
>
>
I am still afraid, though.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:15 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> Even if he ends up having had severe scoliosis, the curvature of his spine might mean only that he couldn't sit as straight in the saddle as could a rider without it. A true hunchback could not ride in balance with his mount and would likely be punted over the horse's head the first time he took a jump.
>
> The curvature of his spine may have meant he had back pain starting at a young age after a hard day's riding or fighting. It might mean one leg was slightly shorter than the other, but that it wasn't noticeable when he walked. It might have been something that would have gotten worse with age (as in deterioration of the spine or the spacers between each vertebrae), but didn't get the chance to do so.
>
> The fact that he was capable of being trained as a knight, campaigning and fighting from age 17 to 33 in weather that wasn't all sunshine and butterflies, and died swinging a battle axe against a foe much bigger than him pretty much speaks for itself and very much against the warbling Tudor propaganda.
>
> Grief, but I wish historians would line the reality of his actions up against the myth, because the physical facts of his service do not support the myth.
>
> And I hope to heck when they line his bony spine up against his actions in that documentary, they'll point out that...wow, look at that, gee whiz kids, I guess Warwick was right to let the kid finish his training at Middleham and not inform his brother the king that little Dickon wasn't able to physically withstand the training and should become an archbishop instead. So sad, too bad, but it's his back, you see....
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > Eileen
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 21:59:19
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â€"
>
> > I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the “crookback†thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of “severe scoliosis†could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â€"
>
> > I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the “crookback†thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of “severe scoliosis†could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:03:10
Eileen wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
Carol responds:
I just hope that Professor Foxhall or one of her colleagues makes the relevant distinction between scoliosis and kephosis and that the professor reverts to her former detailed statement in contrast to the ambiguous one.
Another thought: Maybe at some point, Princess Eugenie will speak up for Richard, who after all is her relative as much as Michael Ibsen's albeit of a different generation. Her own scoliosis wasn't discovered until she went for a massage at, I think, twelve years old. She has since had surgery, unfortunately not available to Richard. However, here's what she looked like as a child (the one eating the ice cream cone):
http://pinterest.com/pin/199425089719849180/
The difference in her shoulders isn't noticeable and neither is the crookedness in her back. I suspect that's how it was for Richard though it's possible that his pain (and posture) worsened as he grew older. Whether being strong and active helped or hurt him I can't say. I suspect that it helped him get through the day though sleeping may have been another matter.
Carol
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
Carol responds:
I just hope that Professor Foxhall or one of her colleagues makes the relevant distinction between scoliosis and kephosis and that the professor reverts to her former detailed statement in contrast to the ambiguous one.
Another thought: Maybe at some point, Princess Eugenie will speak up for Richard, who after all is her relative as much as Michael Ibsen's albeit of a different generation. Her own scoliosis wasn't discovered until she went for a massage at, I think, twelve years old. She has since had surgery, unfortunately not available to Richard. However, here's what she looked like as a child (the one eating the ice cream cone):
http://pinterest.com/pin/199425089719849180/
The difference in her shoulders isn't noticeable and neither is the crookedness in her back. I suspect that's how it was for Richard though it's possible that his pain (and posture) worsened as he grew older. Whether being strong and active helped or hurt him I can't say. I suspect that it helped him get through the day though sleeping may have been another matter.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:05:15
That's interesting. Presumably Isabella didn;'t have it but they aren't identical are they?
So didn't Isabella go to your school as well?
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â¬"
>
> > I agree with most of what youâ¬"re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhallâ¬"s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and sheâ¬"s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the â¬Scrookbackâ¬ý thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richardâ¬"s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; Iâ¬"m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richardâ¬"s being buried in a dyke is not material â¬" I think itâ¬"s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â¬" donâ¬"t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just donâ¬"t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelauâ¬"s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richardâ¬"s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â¬Ssevere scoliosisâ¬ý could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
So didn't Isabella go to your school as well?
________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 21:59
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â¬"
>
> > I agree with most of what youâ¬"re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhallâ¬"s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and sheâ¬"s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the â¬Scrookbackâ¬ý thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richardâ¬"s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; Iâ¬"m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richardâ¬"s being buried in a dyke is not material â¬" I think itâ¬"s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â¬" donâ¬"t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just donâ¬"t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelauâ¬"s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richardâ¬"s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â¬Ssevere scoliosisâ¬ý could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:09:27
Yes, the two of them attended my college - Finch College in NYC. They did not look alike so I guess they were not identical. They were part of the wealthier girls who roomed at the college. I was a day student who did not really know them. But I was fascinated by their pedigree and beauty. Maire.
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> That's interesting. Presumably Isabella didn;'t have it but they aren't identical are they?
> Â
> So didn't Isabella go to your school as well?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 21:59
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Â
> I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
>
> This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Carol â€"
> >
> > > I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
> >
> > > Regarding the â€Å"crookback� thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> > >
> >
> > > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â€Å"severe scoliosis� could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> That's interesting. Presumably Isabella didn;'t have it but they aren't identical are they?
> Â
> So didn't Isabella go to your school as well?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013, 21:59
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Â
> I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
>
> This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Carol â€"
> >
> > > I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
> >
> > > Regarding the â€Å"crookback� thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> > >
> >
> > > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â€Å"severe scoliosis� could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:13:24
CNN tends to be very myopic when it comes to coverage of anything not American, I would place my reportage from BBC America rather than " in other news"
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> Pamela, lol!
> CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> Pamela, lol!
> CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:14:22
Not only Usain Bolt but also Michael Phelps have scoliosis (amongst many other public figures). Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) also has scoliosis = there are some photos where her one shoulder looks slightly higher than the other, but really! She was doing super fit training as Buffy, doing backflips and the like.
I am excited but also moved but also very tense about tomorrow.
Worried about how the programme will come across but also how emotional it will be (mentioned higher up the threads) to see the bones of someone who might well be Richard, being handled and drilled. The distance of time allows the TV programme to do this - if it were a monarch from the last 100 years plus, they wouldn't allow it to be filmed.
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
>
> This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Carol â€"
> >
> > > I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
> >
> > > Regarding the “crookback†thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> > >
> >
> > > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of “severe scoliosis†could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
I am excited but also moved but also very tense about tomorrow.
Worried about how the programme will come across but also how emotional it will be (mentioned higher up the threads) to see the bones of someone who might well be Richard, being handled and drilled. The distance of time allows the TV programme to do this - if it were a monarch from the last 100 years plus, they wouldn't allow it to be filmed.
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
>
> This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Carol â€"
> >
> > > I agree with most of what you’re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhall’s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and she’s losing patience. Just a thought.
> >
> > > Regarding the “crookback†thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richard’s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; I’m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richard’s being buried in a dyke is not material â€" I think it’s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> > >
> >
> > > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â€" don’t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just don’t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelau’s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richard’s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of “severe scoliosis†could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:15:14
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Its going to start at 10 a.m. Hey...no matter what part of the world you are in you should be able to log on the website and watch the conference....I guess the time will be the problem depending on what part of the world you are in...Eileen
Carol responds:
That's three in the morning here. I think I'll just check the forum when I wake up! And the TV just in case.
Carol
>
> Its going to start at 10 a.m. Hey...no matter what part of the world you are in you should be able to log on the website and watch the conference....I guess the time will be the problem depending on what part of the world you are in...Eileen
Carol responds:
That's three in the morning here. I think I'll just check the forum when I wake up! And the TV just in case.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:22:35
Yes, and the tale of his body being brought into Leicester after Bosworth nowhere mentions that his spine was twisted, and it surely couldn't be concealed there. Perhaps it was so well known that it wasn't considered worth mentioning.
As I said, my feeling is it makes Richard even greater and more interesting than he would have been otherwise. It may well be part of the reason that he actually might have been a rather humble person, not being as drop-dead gorgeous as, say, Edward was in his youth.
BTW, do we actually know what George of Clarence looked like? I can't off-hand recall seeing any portraits of either him or Isabel.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 5:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â¬"
>
> > I agree with most of what youâ¬"re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhallâ¬"s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and sheâ¬"s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the â¬Scrookback⬠thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richardâ¬"s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; Iâ¬"m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richardâ¬"s being buried in a dyke is not material â¬" I think itâ¬"s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â¬" donâ¬"t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just donâ¬"t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelauâ¬"s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richardâ¬"s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â¬Ssevere scoliosis⬠could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
As I said, my feeling is it makes Richard even greater and more interesting than he would have been otherwise. It may well be part of the reason that he actually might have been a rather humble person, not being as drop-dead gorgeous as, say, Edward was in his youth.
BTW, do we actually know what George of Clarence looked like? I can't off-hand recall seeing any portraits of either him or Isabel.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 5:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â¬"
>
> > I agree with most of what youâ¬"re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhallâ¬"s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and sheâ¬"s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the â¬Scrookback⬠thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richardâ¬"s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; Iâ¬"m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richardâ¬"s being buried in a dyke is not material â¬" I think itâ¬"s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â¬" donâ¬"t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just donâ¬"t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelauâ¬"s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richardâ¬"s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â¬Ssevere scoliosis⬠could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:42:08
Hi, All -
I think it should be pretty obvious that you can't compare someone with a
relatively mild case of scoliosis to someone with a severe case of
scoliosis. One of my best friends (as I've mentioned here before) had a
severe case of scoliosis, and if you didn't know for sure, you probably
would have said she was hunchbacked, although she didn't have a "hump." And
as I also mentioned, she couldn't sleep in an ordinary bed; she used to
sleep in a couple of chairs with pillows piled up beside and beneath her. I
doubt very much if Usain Bolt has severe scoliosis; if he did, you could
tell that his spine was twisted through his skimpy singlet. A person with a
severe condition - you might not know what it was exactly, but you would
know that something was wrong.
England was not a big country, and all those Yorks and Lancasters were
related. I am sure the word got around, and I think it may have affected the
desire of Richard's peers to wholeheartedly commit themselves to him, even
if only subconsciously. Unfortunately, I don't think Richard could compare
physically with Edward, although intellectually Richard was probably much
superior to his older brother.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment (
Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Eileen wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the
Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis
is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned
from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being
interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed
have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have
been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which
is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for
themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still
choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
Carol responds:
I just hope that Professor Foxhall or one of her colleagues makes the
relevant distinction between scoliosis and kephosis and that the professor
reverts to her former detailed statement in contrast to the ambiguous one.
Another thought: Maybe at some point, Princess Eugenie will speak up for
Richard, who after all is her relative as much as Michael Ibsen's albeit of
a different generation. Her own scoliosis wasn't discovered until she went
for a massage at, I think, twelve years old. She has since had surgery,
unfortunately not available to Richard. However, here's what she looked like
as a child (the one eating the ice cream cone):
http://pinterest.com/pin/199425089719849180/
The difference in her shoulders isn't noticeable and neither is the
crookedness in her back. I suspect that's how it was for Richard though it's
possible that his pain (and posture) worsened as he grew older. Whether
being strong and active helped or hurt him I can't say. I suspect that it
helped him get through the day though sleeping may have been another matter.
Carol
I think it should be pretty obvious that you can't compare someone with a
relatively mild case of scoliosis to someone with a severe case of
scoliosis. One of my best friends (as I've mentioned here before) had a
severe case of scoliosis, and if you didn't know for sure, you probably
would have said she was hunchbacked, although she didn't have a "hump." And
as I also mentioned, she couldn't sleep in an ordinary bed; she used to
sleep in a couple of chairs with pillows piled up beside and beneath her. I
doubt very much if Usain Bolt has severe scoliosis; if he did, you could
tell that his spine was twisted through his skimpy singlet. A person with a
severe condition - you might not know what it was exactly, but you would
know that something was wrong.
England was not a big country, and all those Yorks and Lancasters were
related. I am sure the word got around, and I think it may have affected the
desire of Richard's peers to wholeheartedly commit themselves to him, even
if only subconsciously. Unfortunately, I don't think Richard could compare
physically with Edward, although intellectually Richard was probably much
superior to his older brother.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 6:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment (
Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Eileen wrote:
>
> Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the
Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis
is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned
from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being
interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed
have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have
been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which
is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for
themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still
choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> Eileen
Carol responds:
I just hope that Professor Foxhall or one of her colleagues makes the
relevant distinction between scoliosis and kephosis and that the professor
reverts to her former detailed statement in contrast to the ambiguous one.
Another thought: Maybe at some point, Princess Eugenie will speak up for
Richard, who after all is her relative as much as Michael Ibsen's albeit of
a different generation. Her own scoliosis wasn't discovered until she went
for a massage at, I think, twelve years old. She has since had surgery,
unfortunately not available to Richard. However, here's what she looked like
as a child (the one eating the ice cream cone):
http://pinterest.com/pin/199425089719849180/
The difference in her shoulders isn't noticeable and neither is the
crookedness in her back. I suspect that's how it was for Richard though it's
possible that his pain (and posture) worsened as he grew older. Whether
being strong and active helped or hurt him I can't say. I suspect that it
helped him get through the day though sleeping may have been another matter.
Carol
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 22:43:43
There is a great Clarence portrait in "The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal" by de Ruvigny.
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Yes, and the tale of his body being brought into Leicester after Bosworth nowhere mentions that his spine was twisted, and it surely couldn't be concealed there. Perhaps it was so well known that it wasn't considered worth mentioning.
As I said, my feeling is it makes Richard even greater and more interesting than he would have been otherwise. It may well be part of the reason that he actually might have been a rather humble person, not being as drop-dead gorgeous as, say, Edward was in his youth.
BTW, do we actually know what George of Clarence looked like? I can't off-hand recall seeing any portraits of either him or Isabel.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 5:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â¬"
>
> > I agree with most of what youâ¬"re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhallâ¬"s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and sheâ¬"s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the â¬Scrookback⬠thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richardâ¬"s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; Iâ¬"m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richardâ¬"s being buried in a dyke is not material â¬" I think itâ¬"s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â¬" donâ¬"t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just donâ¬"t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelauâ¬"s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richardâ¬"s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â¬Ssevere scoliosis⬠could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Johanne Tournier
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Yes, and the tale of his body being brought into Leicester after Bosworth nowhere mentions that his spine was twisted, and it surely couldn't be concealed there. Perhaps it was so well known that it wasn't considered worth mentioning.
As I said, my feeling is it makes Richard even greater and more interesting than he would have been otherwise. It may well be part of the reason that he actually might have been a rather humble person, not being as drop-dead gorgeous as, say, Edward was in his youth.
BTW, do we actually know what George of Clarence looked like? I can't off-hand recall seeing any portraits of either him or Isabel.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 5:59 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
I went to school with one of Ingrid Bergman's daughters (not Isabella but her twin). She had severe scoliosis and was put in a kind of back brace in an attempt to correct the dislocation. We were not at all aware that she had a problem. I'm sure Richard's gowns were cleverly used to conceal his condition.
This does not make him either a hunchback or a child murderer, lol! Maire.
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Dear Carol â¬"
>
> > I agree with most of what youâ¬"re saying; in fact Ms. Foxhallâ¬"s quote is surprising to me. Perhaps she has been bugged by a lot of Ricardians anxious for info or something and sheâ¬"s losing patience. Just a thought.
>
> > Regarding the â¬Scrookback⬠thing, though, you know my opinion. I think the statement of the disgruntled worthy of York is worth noting, being only a few years after Richardâ¬"s demise, and as it happens, turning out to be accurate. The thing about being a hypocrite is probably a matter of opinion, maybe honest opinion; Iâ¬"m sure there are a lot of instances in which an aggrieved person could accuse someone of hypocrisy and have some grounds for that charge. And the fact that he was mistaken about Richardâ¬"s being buried in a dyke is not material â¬" I think itâ¬"s fair to say that one of the residents of York at the time was probably in a better position to know if Richard was a crookback or not than to know where he was buried.
> >
>
> > Regarding the failure of any description to note the condition â¬" donâ¬"t know; all the descriptions we have of everyone from the period seem woefully incomplete to me. They just donâ¬"t say a lot. Whether or not Richard would have seen von Poppelauâ¬"s, for instance, it might not have been polite nor relevant to why he was writing, and of course he had been a guest of Richardâ¬"s. I do go back and forth on this, but my bottom line is that a case of â¬Ssevere scoliosis⬠could probably not be completely concealed by clothing or posture.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hard to say. After all, Hussein Bolt has scoliosis and it's not noticeable even in the skimpy clothes of a runner. And I still think that the disgruntled Yorkshireman is repeating rumors. Not everyone in York would have seen richard in person or up close. And given the number of people who saw him, including some who were hostile, you'd think there would be more contemporary reports of a raised shoulder (even Rous says nothing about a crooked back) if it were visible. Commynes in particular would surely have commented on it. I guess we'll have to wait for the reports. What matters is how the subject is handled in the documentary. Too bad neither you nor I can watch the documentary (until we have our DVDs).
>
> Carol
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 23:10:03
There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on the university website although they will put a recording of the conference online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter feed.
Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've read it will be shown on the BBC website.
For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
To tomorrow.
Kate
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ‘in the knowâ€!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've read it will be shown on the BBC website.
For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
To tomorrow.
Kate
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ‘in the knowâ€!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-03 23:21:19
Hi, Kate -
Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: katewescombe
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on the university website although they will put a recording of the conference online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter feed.
Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've read it will be shown on the BBC website.
For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
To tomorrow.
Kate
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the knowâ¬!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
TTFN (smile)
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: katewescombe
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on the university website although they will put a recording of the conference online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter feed.
Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've read it will be shown on the BBC website.
For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
To tomorrow.
Kate
--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the knowâ¬!
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
Re: Live audio feed of press conference
2013-02-03 23:21:34
BBC Radio Leicester has announced they will have a live audio feed of the
press conference at the University of Leicester on Monday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014hps3
Regards,
Tracy
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of katewescombe
Sent: February-03-13 6:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment (
Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
feed.
Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
read it will be shown on the BBC website.
For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
To tomorrow.
Kate
press conference at the University of Leicester on Monday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p014hps3
Regards,
Tracy
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of katewescombe
Sent: February-03-13 6:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment (
Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
feed.
Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
read it will be shown on the BBC website.
For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
To tomorrow.
Kate
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-03 23:34:20
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ýýýin the knowýý !
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
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>
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us ýýýin the knowýý !
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
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>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-03 23:55:02
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-04 01:06:06
And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-04 01:09:53
Quick, Karen, what's the URL?
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Raynor
Sent: 4 Feb 2013 01:06:08 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Raynor
Sent: 4 Feb 2013 01:06:08 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-04 01:13:04
I heard it on local news so googled Leicester uni and there it is.
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 4 Feb 2013 01:09:54 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Quick, Karen, what's the URL?
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Raynor
Sent: 4 Feb 2013 01:06:08 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 4 Feb 2013 01:09:54 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Quick, Karen, what's the URL?
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Raynor
Sent: 4 Feb 2013 01:06:08 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
-----Original Message-----
From: Johanne Tournier
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Thanks, Lisa!
I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
Johanne
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
Hi Johanne
its
@uniofleicester <https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
& yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
store it on my PC - will let you know)
Looking forward to it all..
Lisa
On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hi, Kate -
> Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
>
> I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
>
> TTFN (smile)
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: katewescombe
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> feed.
>
> Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> read it will be shown on the BBC website.
>
> For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
>
> To tomorrow.
>
> Kate
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > >
> > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-04 01:15:16
What's the link???
We did expect to see his bones though didn't we? The scientists or the people who made the doc don't have the personal love we have for Richard..... They must be thinking if we can show Tutankhamen's mummy why not Riii's?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Karen Raynor <karenraynor@...> wrote:
> And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Thanks, Lisa!
> I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Hi Johanne
> its
> @uniofleicester https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
> & yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
> Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
> anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
> store it on my PC - will let you know)
>
> Looking forward to it all..
>
> Lisa
>
> On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi, Kate -
> > Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
> >
> > I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> > fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> > keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
> >
> > TTFN (smile)
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: katewescombe
> > Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> > ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> > There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> > the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> > online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> > feed.
> >
> > Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> > trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> > read it will be shown on the BBC website.
> >
> > For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> > hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> > tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
> >
> > To tomorrow.
> >
> > Kate
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> > Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> > think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> > was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> > comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> > feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
We did expect to see his bones though didn't we? The scientists or the people who made the doc don't have the personal love we have for Richard..... They must be thinking if we can show Tutankhamen's mummy why not Riii's?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Karen Raynor <karenraynor@...> wrote:
> And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Thanks, Lisa!
> I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Hi Johanne
> its
> @uniofleicester https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
> & yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
> Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
> anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
> store it on my PC - will let you know)
>
> Looking forward to it all..
>
> Lisa
>
> On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi, Kate -
> > Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
> >
> > I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> > fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> > keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
> >
> > TTFN (smile)
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: katewescombe
> > Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> > ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> > There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> > the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> > online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> > feed.
> >
> > Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> > trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> > read it will be shown on the BBC website.
> >
> > For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> > hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> > tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
> >
> > To tomorrow.
> >
> > Kate
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> > Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> > think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> > was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> > comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> > feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA re
2013-02-04 02:25:59
My God, they are myopic in the USA, they have to be partially sighted for the rest of the world!
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:13 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
CNN tends to be very myopic when it comes to coverage of anything not American, I would place my reportage from BBC America rather than " in other news"
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Pamela, lol!
> CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:13 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:
CNN tends to be very myopic when it comes to coverage of anything not American, I would place my reportage from BBC America rather than " in other news"
George
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 3, 2013, at 4:11 PM, Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Pamela, lol!
> CNN or someone should do something about it!!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
> > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us in the know !
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> >
> >
> > Too many of those fools out there!
> > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com<http://www.ishitabandyo.com>
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts<http://www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts>
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com<http://www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com>
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > Carol...worry not...Professor Foxhill needs to credit members of the Society with a tedium of common sense...i.e. that we all know that Scoliosis is completed different from having a hunchback. In fact this was mentioned from Day 1 when the the bones were first found. Someone said while being interviewed at the dig that the bones, who were of a strong man, did indeed have 'severe scoliosis' but it was unlikely that this condition would have been noticeable, maybe one shoulder a little higher than the other...which is what Rous said. And there we have it.....the bones will speak for themselves and tell their story. All will be revealed and if some still choose to trot out those old hairy chestnuts...then they are fools.
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Johanne Tournier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hereâ¬"s the URL for the article and a tinyurl â¬"
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9836709/Richard-III-tests-on-skeleton-could-rewrite-history-books-says-lead-scientist.html
> > > > >
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/acdz5mr
> > > > >
> > > > > For the most part itâ¬"s a pretty good article. [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasnâ¬"t too happy with the last paragraph of the article however:
> > > >
> > > > > Professor Foxhill is less optimistic about how the society will react if there is hard evidence that this is their fellow. â¬SIt could be quite shattering,⬠she says. â¬SOne popular line of thought [among the group] is that the hunchback king was a myth of Tudor propaganda. This skeleton would prove that he had quite a severe scoliosis.â¬
> > > > >
> > > > > That sort of negativity is a bit irksome. I believe that most (really I hope *all*) members of the Society realize that if RIII did, as it appears, suffer from severe scoliosis, if anything he would be even more of a hero than we realized. However, I also think that if Richard had a serious physical defect, even if it wasnâ¬"t a handicap, considering the beliefs of the day, mightnâ¬"t that have been a serious impediment to people being willing to follow him or accept him as king? As I said, I think, accomplishing what he was able to may have been even more extraordinary than we realized. I suggest that the Society be well prepared to fight the suggestion, which may be not long in coming, that it â¬Sproves⬠More and Shakespeare et al to be true. Ackkk!
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I was going to quote the same paragraph, which epitomizes my worst fear about this discovery--that Richard's detractors will jump on the overly emphasized curved spine as "proof" that Tudor propaganda about Richard's supposed hunchback is true. What's most disturbing to me is that Lin Foxhall, Head of the School of Archaeology and Ancient History at the University of Leicester, is the very person who was emphasizing, soon after the discovery, that scoliosis is not the same as a hunchback. Here's what she said earlier:
> > > >
> > > > "[O]n the basis of the data we have so far -- the archaeological context and the osteological (skeletal) evidence, we have a man with what appear to be battle injuries who suffered from severe scoliosis (curvature of the spine), respectfully but modestly buried in a place of honour in the friary church. This appears to be consistent with some of the meagre textual evidence about Richard III from contemporary historical sources, but does not fit the exaggerated picture painted by later, Tudor sources which portrayed him as a wicked hunchback.
> > > >
> > > > "There was a long history from Greco-Roman times onward of associating disability with negative character traits, a belief that we do not share today, though it partially explains the later Tudor representation of Richard III. The individual we have discovered was plainly strong and active despite his disability, indeed it seems likely that he died in battle. If this person does indeed turn out to be King Richard III there is the potential for a new and different understanding of the fate of the last of the Plantagenet kings."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912093457.htm
> > > >
> > > > I thought that she had been quoted in other articles as saying that scoliosis is not kyphosis and would have resulted in a raised shoulder, not a hunchback. Maybe that was someone else, perhaps Jo Appleby? At any rate, it disturbs me that Lin Foxhall, the person who made that extremely reasonable and sensible statement, would seem to support the Richard-as-hunchback idea in a more recent article.
> > > >
> > > > So, no, his bones weren't thrown in the River Soar--he was given a respectful burial by the Grey Friars--but, yes, the hunchback legend is true? That's what she seems to be saying. The problem is that the hunchback legend (along with the withered arm) is so firmly attached to the motif of the wicked uncle who murdered his way to the throne that any seeming evidence that the hunchback was real serves to convince those disposed (like James Gairdner before them) to regard Shakespeare as a historian that the whole myth is true.
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, I'm not happy with Lin Foxhall at this moment and hope that she retreats to her former position. I also hope that whoever made the kyphosis/scoliosis distinction in the earlier articles makes it again, clearly and unmistakably, in the Channel 4 documentary. Otherwise, we've found our king only to have him suffer a new bout of Shakespearean balderdash. Not even Sir Thomas More or Vergil gave him a hunchback. Give the poor maligned king a break!
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Johanne, I don't think that his disability was visible or it would have been commented on in other descriptions, including that of Von Poppelau, whose diary Richard would not have seen. The Spanish ambassador, Sassiola, whom Richard knighted, would no doubt have mentioned a visible deformity to the Spanish court after Richard's death. Henry VII, who accused him of "shedding infant's blood," says nothing about it. Commynes, who saw him during the Picquigny incident (and commented that Edward, once the handsomest man in Europe, was getting fat) said nothing whatever about Richard's appearance. The raised shoulder first appears in Rous and the "crokeback" in an incident after Richard's death in which the speaker is obviously repeating rumors (Richard was "an ypocrite" and was buried in a ditch) for which there's no supporting evidence, hypocrisy being the enemies' way of accounting for all his good deeds.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, as you say, if he did have scoliosis, his accomplishments as a soldier and statesman are all the more admirable, and Lin Foxhall's iimplication that Tudor propaganda was right in that respect is, to me, very disturbing. I really hope that she reiterates her earlier position in the documentary. Otherwise, we'll all be charging *up* Ambion Hill in our battle to defend our fallen king.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA res
2013-02-04 09:22:04
She outlived him and is buried elsewhere - and shouldn't be difficult to find.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
What's the link???
We did expect to see his bones though didn't we? The scientists or the people who made the doc don't have the personal love we have for Richard..... They must be thinking if we can show Tutankhamen's mummy why not Riii's?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Karen Raynor karenraynor@...> wrote:
> And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Thanks, Lisa!
> I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Hi Johanne
> its
> @uniofleicester https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
> & yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
> Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
> anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
> store it on my PC - will let you know)
>
> Looking forward to it all..
>
> Lisa
>
> On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi, Kate -
> > Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
> >
> > I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> > fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> > keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
> >
> > TTFN (smile)
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: katewescombe
> > Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> > ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> > There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> > the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> > online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> > feed.
> >
> > Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> > trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> > read it will be shown on the BBC website.
> >
> > For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> > hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> > tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
> >
> > To tomorrow.
> >
> > Kate
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> > Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> > think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> > was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> > comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> > feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
What's the link???
We did expect to see his bones though didn't we? The scientists or the people who made the doc don't have the personal love we have for Richard..... They must be thinking if we can show Tutankhamen's mummy why not Riii's?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Feb 3, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Karen Raynor karenraynor@...> wrote:
> And so it begins....Leicester uni have released pics online of the skull......
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Johanne Tournier
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:55:05 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Thanks, Lisa!
> I can't believe that it's less than 12 hrs away! Yippee!
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique
> Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:34:25 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
>
> Hi Johanne
> its
> @uniofleicester https://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
> & yes we are go at 6am here in Atlantic Canada - I'm going to go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk/ for my updates & should be able to get the
> Chanel 4 program through my Apple TV/itunes app - I'll see if there is
> anyway I can copy it (dont have a recording device but I may be able to
> store it on my PC - will let you know)
>
> Looking forward to it all..
>
> Lisa
>
> On 3 February 2013 19:21, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hi, Kate -
> > Do you know what the unit's Twitter handle is?
> >
> > I think 10 am GMT is 6 am here in Atlantic Canada. I'll try to be online
> > fm then and have BBC on TV just on case. So I hope you lucky people will
> > keep us in mind & let us know when the press conference comes online.
> >
> > TTFN (smile)
> > Johanne
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: katewescombe
> > Sent: 3 Feb 2013 23:10:05 GMT
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing comment
> > ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> >
> > There won't be any live audio or visual feeds from the press conference on
> > the university website although they will put a recording of the conference
> > online afterwards. During the conference the uni will be running a twitter
> > feed.
> >
> > Reading their notes for the press, provision is being made for satellite
> > trucks so I guess some channels may run the conference live - I think I've
> > read it will be shown on the BBC website.
> >
> > For those interested in the bone and site reports, details of how to get
> > hold of these will be on the Leicester website after the press briefing
> > tomorrow (pers. com. Richard Buckley).
> >
> > To tomorrow.
> >
> > Kate
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok...look...if there is going to be a live news conference on the
> > Leicester University website...I will watch and post at the same time...I
> > think someone..Liz?..said that it was going to start about 10.30 and she
> > was hoping to be able to watch it...Eileen
> > > On 3 Feb 2013, at 20:56, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > > But rich, with friends in the UK, who keep us â¬Üin the know⬠!
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: [mailto:
> > ] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 2:54 PM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Lin Foxhall's disturbing
> > comment ( Was: ... inconclusive DNA result?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Too many of those fools out there!
> > > > Please let us in US know how it goes as soon you guys find out. We are
> > feeling like poor cousins out here:)
> > > >
> > > > Ishita Bandyo
> > > > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > > > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > > > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.