FINALLY!!!

Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY

Sent from my iPad

Doesn't work for me - blocked by Channel 4


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:33
Subject: FINALLY!!!


 
Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY

Sent from my iPad

thats why you need expat net!

On 6 February 2013 20:34, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Doesn't work for me - blocked by Channel 4
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: ""
> >
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: FINALLY!!!
>
>
>
> Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it
> but wanted to share
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
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 up on the torrent site MVGroup, in both standard definition and HD. Others probably have it too. Finished downloading the HD version earlier today, and am looking forward to watching it later this evening after my daughter has gone to bed. This documentary is a keeper for me, so I'm not so interested in a YouTube version. It'll be ages before they show it on TV over here, I'm sure.

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Doesn't work for me - blocked by Channel 4
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To: ""
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:33
> Subject: FINALLY!!!
>
>
>  
> Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am watching it right now! How can it be blocked? If you go on YouTube and search it will come up! I am still getting the DVD from George!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:42 PM, "goldielover56" <fiona_w@...> wrote:

> Its up on the torrent site MVGroup, in both standard definition and HD. Others probably have it too. Finished downloading the HD version earlier today, and am looking forward to watching it later this evening after my daughter has gone to bed. This documentary is a keeper for me, so I'm not so interested in a YouTube version. It'll be ages before they show it on TV over here, I'm sure.
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't work for me - blocked by Channel 4
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:33
> > Subject: FINALLY!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Ishita wrote:
> > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY

Carol responds:
Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.

Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.

Carol

I had to search for it on YouTube as I couldn't get the link to work either. I was a bit concerned there was a geoblocker on it when people said they couldn't watch it, but there doesn't seem to be, as I can access it from Canada. Still going to watch my downloaded copy rather than YouTube, though. YouTube can be slow as molasses at night, and buffering drives me nuts.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
>
>

I've just finished watching the channel 4 documentary and my worried
expectations were (I'm pleased to say) not met. I didn't find the presenter
as annoying as I thought I might, given some of the comments; the history
was presented in a well-balanced way. Pollard's little piece was very much
as one would hope it would be, holding to his considered opinion but
allowing for other possibilities. As he said, we just don't know what
happened to the princes.

Following the progress of the various scientists was hugely interesting.

As to Philippa Langley, after reading (on facebook) everything from
'over-emotional'; 'acted like Richard's widow' to 'unhinged', what I saw
very much wasn't what I expected. I think it's probably come from a
preconception that all Ricardians are 'nutters' (as has been mentioned). I'm
sure we do have some in our ranks, but not at any statistically significant
higher level than occurs in the general population. Yes, she was emotional
but, as has also been pointed out, she has invested so much of herself in
this project over the years. The levels of anxiety, expectation, fear of
disappointment and anticipation she experienced throughout the project (and
before) must have, at times, been overwhelming.

I'm glad I got the chance to watch it before too much time passed.

Karen


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:25:23 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!






Ishita wrote:
> > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it
but wanted to share
> > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY

Carol responds:
Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.

Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it
now.

Carol

Try this URL for the documentary; it's not blocked.

http://youtu.be/3uUycrk5AfY

~Weds

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I am watching it right now! How can it be blocked? If you go on YouTube and search it will come up! I am still getting the DVD from George!

Just finished watching the documentary. And like Karen, I am quite relieved that it was not maudlin! There were emotional elements but considering even I was weeping when I saw him In that grave, how can I blame PL? I liked it enough to make my husband watch it. He thinks I am a " nutter".......:/
One thing that is utterly ridiculous was the was the bit about a huge raven alighting on the tower and transforming himself into Dracula! Cruel.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:

> I've just finished watching the channel 4 documentary and my worried
> expectations were (I'm pleased to say) not met. I didn't find the presenter
> as annoying as I thought I might, given some of the comments; the history
> was presented in a well-balanced way. Pollard's little piece was very much
> as one would hope it would be, holding to his considered opinion but
> allowing for other possibilities. As he said, we just don't know what
> happened to the princes.
>
> Following the progress of the various scientists was hugely interesting.
>
> As to Philippa Langley, after reading (on facebook) everything from
> 'over-emotional'; 'acted like Richard's widow' to 'unhinged', what I saw
> very much wasn't what I expected. I think it's probably come from a
> preconception that all Ricardians are 'nutters' (as has been mentioned). I'm
> sure we do have some in our ranks, but not at any statistically significant
> higher level than occurs in the general population. Yes, she was emotional
> but, as has also been pointed out, she has invested so much of herself in
> this project over the years. The levels of anxiety, expectation, fear of
> disappointment and anticipation she experienced throughout the project (and
> before) must have, at times, been overwhelming.
>
> I'm glad I got the chance to watch it before too much time passed.
>
> Karen
>
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> Reply-To: >
> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:25:23 -0000
> To: >
> Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!
>
> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it
> but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
> the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
> Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it
> now.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.

One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).

--- In , Vickie wrote:
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> >
> > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Vickie

I quite liked Dr Appleby! As always, it's interesting how different people
respond to things. I think she was somewhat taken aback by Philiippa's
displays of emotion (and scientists can get emotional, too) but I didn't
read 'disgust'. She seemed more baffled and discomfited to me.

The perception of Richard not being 'masculine' is unfortunate. When the
word 'feminine' was used the first two times, it followed the word
'gracile', as if to help explain it. The 'feminine' was leapt on and, sadly,
not corrected. 'gracile' might be more commonly associated with women's body
shapes than men's, but that doesn't make a 'gracile' man 'non-masculine'.

Karen



From: Vickie <lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:44:44 -0600
To: ""
<>
Cc: ""
<>
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!






I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've
read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone
have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
What I'm asking about is -
she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
>
> One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
>
> --- In , Vickie wrote:
> >
> > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > Thanks
> > Vickie
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > >
> > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.

You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.

--- In , Vickie wrote:
>
> LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> What I'm asking about is -
> she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> >
> > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> >
> > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > >
> > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > Thanks
> > > Vickie
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > >
> > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Maybe that's what she was referring to, but I didn't think he said of Richard that he was lacking in masculinity. I've know many men who were small yet still masculine :)
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:44 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.
>
> You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.
>
> --- In , Vickie wrote:
> >
> > LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> > What I'm asking about is -
> > she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> > What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> > Vickie
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> > >
> > > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> > >
> > > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Vickie
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > > >
> > > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Vickie wrote:
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie

Carol responds:

I didn't like Dr. Appleby, either. I thought that her tactlessness in using the term "hunchback" in speaking to Philippa even after seeing that it shocked her was almost brutal and very unprofessional, especially when she, like her colleague, knew that they were using it loosely. (Did either of them use the term scoliosis? If they didn't, that shows they were not anatomy experts. Too bad Lin Foxhall wasn't there to correct them.) That aside, Dr. Appleby was speaking from memory and couldn't remember the source or the quotation. Since no early chronicler to my knowledge ever challenged Richard's masculinity, she may have in mind Von Popellau's remark about Richard's delicate arms and legs (which fits with their being "gracile" though someone else, Lin Foxhall, I think, mentioned in the early articles that he was active and strong despite his disability). More likely, she was thinking of Rous, who said that Richard was "slight of body and weak in strength" but fought valiantly to the end. "Slight in body" is apparently true, but "weak in strength"? He wielded a battle axe and unhorsed Sir John Cheney! BTW, if Rous had thought of Richard as hunchbacked, that would have been the perfect time to mention it, but he didn't.

Carol

We may be conflating Dr. Foxhall's comments with Dr. Appleby's. I wish I could remember exactly how she put it, but the idea of "nearly a feminine appearance" was in there somewhere.

--- In , Vickie wrote:
>
> Maybe that's what she was referring to, but I didn't think he said of Richard that he was lacking in masculinity. I've know many men who were small yet still masculine :)
> Vickie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:44 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> > I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.
> >
> > You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.
> >
> > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> > > What I'm asking about is -
> > > she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> > > What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> > > Vickie
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > >
> > > > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> > > >
> > > > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Vickie
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

McJohn wrote:
>[snip]
>
> One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).

Carol responds:

The word is extremely common in paleoanthropology. It makes me think of gracile Australopithecines (Africanus, Afarensis, etc.) or Homo habilis. Essentially, it means of a slender build (or in the case of Australopithecines, having relatively small teeth as compared with Boisei or Robustus). There's no implication of femininity or physical weakness.

Carol

De Wilkerson also said Richard's features were strongly masculine. How does that go with a feminine body?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
>
> One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
>
> --- In , Vickie wrote:
> >
> > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > Thanks
> > Vickie
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > >
> > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Ishita

I think the confusion lies in multiple meanings of 'masculine' and
'feminine'. In this instant, they're talking about body types, not whether
Richard 'looked like a woman'. It's why the word 'gracile' is a better
choice. It might be that 'gracile' is far more typical of women than men,
but it doesn't mean that a gracile man is in some way not 'masculine'. I
hope this helps!

Karen



From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 23:24:42 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!






De Wilkerson also said Richard's features were strongly masculine. How does
that go with a feminine body?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" mcjohn@...
<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> > wrote:

> They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who
does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender
than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the
presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that
effect.
>
> One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial
reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to
during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay,
was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to
indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you
know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're
talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Vickie wrote:
> >
> > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read
a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a
reference for that?
> > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > Thanks
> > Vickie
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't
watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it
from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
> > >
> > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it
now.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Was it Dr Appleby or Lin Foxhall? Anyway, it seems to have been a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of a passage in Rous.

Marie


--- In , Vickie wrote:
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> >
> > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I don't think so. Von Poppelau (at least in the extant copy of what he wrote) said Richard was two or three fingers taller than himself, and he was a renowned fighter. What he did say was that he had "delicate arms and legs". The quotation I recall was from Rous, about how Richard fought to his last breath at Bosworth despite his frail physique.
Marie

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.
>
> You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.
>
> --- In , Vickie wrote:
> >
> > LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> > What I'm asking about is -
> > she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> > What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> > Vickie
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> > >
> > > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> > >
> > > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Vickie
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > > >
> > > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Good to know piracy rules the net. No profits from selling a programme, no more programmes.
But you keep downloading until suddenly there will be nothing decent to download any more and hands will be thrown up demanding to know why?
Sorry, but finally is a good way of describing how the something for nothing mentality we now live in is slowly destroying the film, tv, dvd, and video business.
Rant over.
Paul
I know you want to see the programme, but can't you be patient and pay for it when it becomes available, so it makes the production company a profit, otherwise they won't even consider making anything else like it ever again.


Richard Liveth Yet!




On 7 Feb 2013, at 00:42, goldielover56 wrote:

> Its up on the torrent site MVGroup, in both standard definition and HD. Others probably have it too. Finished downloading the HD version earlier today, and am looking forward to watching it later this evening after my daughter has gone to bed. This documentary is a keeper for me, so I'm not so interested in a YouTube version. It'll be ages before they show it on TV over here, I'm sure.
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't work for me - blocked by Channel 4
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ishita Bandyo
>> To: ""
>> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:33
>> Subject: FINALLY!!!
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
>> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Enjoy breaking the law do you?
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!




On 7 Feb 2013, at 00:47, Ishita Bandyo wrote:

> I am watching it right now! How can it be blocked? If you go on YouTube and search it will come up! I am still getting the DVD from George!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:42 PM, "goldielover56" <fiona_w@...> wrote:
>
>> Its up on the torrent site MVGroup, in both standard definition and HD. Others probably have it too. Finished downloading the HD version earlier today, and am looking forward to watching it later this evening after my daughter has gone to bed. This documentary is a keeper for me, so I'm not so interested in a YouTube version. It'll be ages before they show it on TV over here, I'm sure.
>>
>> --- In , david rayner wrote:
>>>
>>> Doesn't work for me - blocked by Channel 4
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Ishita Bandyo
>>> To: ""
>>> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 0:33
>>> Subject: FINALLY!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
>>> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>>> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi, Vickie 

Dr. Appleby's statements (the ones I hear anyway) didn't actually indicate that he was un-masculine. She is speaking about his bone structure, remember, and she said that he has a gracile build, which is a term of art in anthropology. The term has been used to describe some of the hominid finds from the far distant past, some of the australopithecines, for example. I take it to mean a fine, slender build. Dr. Appleby did say that Richard had an unusually gracile build for a male (an English male, I presume) but there are probably males of other races or nationalities where a gracile build is more commonly found. I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I believe, in Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only 1-2% of English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a story to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native girl back to France with him? Or perhaps it's result of a more humdrum mass migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be glued to the story as it unfolds.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne





From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!





I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 3:07
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


> I quite liked Dr Appleby! As always, it's interesting how different people respond to things.

-----

Me too.  I think the issue with the standard actually came down to differing notions of respect.  As far as Dr Appleby was concerned, the body hadn't been properly identified and so draping it with the royal arms was inappropriate.
Phillipa Langley was going on instinct and was proved to be right.
I can understand, appreciate and admire both perspectives equally.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 3:07
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
Vickie

I quite liked Dr Appleby! As always, it's interesting how different people
respond to things. I think she was somewhat taken aback by Philiippa's
displays of emotion (and scientists can get emotional, too) but I didn't
read 'disgust'. She seemed more baffled and discomfited to me.

The perception of Richard not being 'masculine' is unfortunate. When the
word 'feminine' was used the first two times, it followed the word
'gracile', as if to help explain it. The 'feminine' was leapt on and, sadly,
not corrected. 'gracile' might be more commonly associated with women's body
shapes than men's, but that doesn't make a 'gracile' man 'non-masculine'.

Karen

From: Vickie lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:44:44 -0600
To: ""
>
Cc: ""
>
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've
read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone
have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
> wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

Hi, again 

I caught the beginning of Dr. Appleby's briefing at the press conference on Monday on YouTube, and she does say, slender, almost feminine, but what I think she means is gracile which I have heard her say elsewhere on (an)other video. It is possible for a person to be both gracile and masculine (i.e. having a gracile build doesn't mean that Richard was, pardon the term, effeminate. Someone mentioned the Richard reconstruction looked like Johnny Depp, and I thought there was some truth to that  and Depp also has, I would say, a rather gracile build.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:11 AM
To:
Subject: RE: FINALLY!!!







Hi, Vickie 

Dr. Appleby's statements (the ones I hear anyway) didn't actually indicate that he was un-masculine. She is speaking about his bone structure, remember, and she said that he has a gracile build, which is a term of art in anthropology. The term has been used to describe some of the hominid finds from the far distant past, some of the australopithecines, for example. I take it to mean a fine, slender build. Dr. Appleby did say that Richard had an unusually gracile build for a male (an English male, I presume) but there are probably males of other races or nationalities where a gracile build is more commonly found. I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I believe, in Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only 1-2% of English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a story to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native girl back to France with him? Or perhaps it's result of a more humdrum mass migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be glued to the story as it unfolds.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

Funny thing about the late, great Wally Cox. Although a small man, he was a body builder! He was Marlon Brando's best friend and they worked out together. Maire.


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I don't think so. Von Poppelau (at least in the extant copy of what he wrote) said Richard was two or three fingers taller than himself, and he was a renowned fighter. What he did say was that he had "delicate arms and legs". The quotation I recall was from Rous, about how Richard fought to his last breath at Bosworth despite his frail physique.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.
> >
> > You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.
> >
> > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> > > What I'm asking about is -
> > > she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> > > What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> > > Vickie
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > >
> > > > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> > > >
> > > > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Vickie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Vickie
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Watching the program I was quite disconcerted by Appleby, especially the lack of skill unearthing the remains, assuming that the buried remains are at the same distance down as the exposed portion just seems a very slapdash aqpproach to archaeology. Particularly given the possible high-profile of the remains but generally too. Working around human remains swinging picks rather than a trowel was always something that archaeologists I knew (at Bristol Uni) would have objected to strenuously. The result was another hole in the skull and to my mind she didn't seem to think she had done anything wrong.


The business with the flag also showed she really did not believe it was Richard, though why she made an issue of it seemed silly, Richard or not she was hardly going to get into trouble for carrying it 20 feet or so.
She really came across badly to me all through.

As for the scoliosis and the 'misformed shoulder bone, all I can say is I agree that orthopaedic specialists should look at the spine and left hip-joint. As far as the shoulder 'malformation' goes, that was another issue that raised my hackles a bit.

I have watched programs regarding the skeletons of soldiers recovered (IIRC) from burial pits at/near the Towton battlefield and also on those from the Mary Rose. It was pointed out that the shoulder bone, which fuses to another bone in adulthood had not done so due to these men practising the Longbow from an early age, preventing the bones fusing. Other bones were also 'malformed' due the great musculature developed by these archers


Now Richard has been trained to be a knight from an early age and would have undergone a regimen of learning how to use the weapons of the day, which sharp or blunt were all very heavy weapons, Poleaxes, maces, Halberds - these were brutal and heavy weapons and Richard would have been constantly practising with them (presumably with heavier and heavier ones as his strength grew). Most of the weapons would be swung around overhead and to the sides, and it is very possible that the 'malformation' of that shoulder bone simply reflects that many years and hours of practise in swinging weapons. I am not contending this is in fact the case, but they should have been aware of the possibility. If the same people who examined the archers looked at the bone they might well conclude that, which would pretty much leave Richard with a 'normal' (for knights) over development of the right shoulder.

The deformation of the spine as shown certainly seems extreme to me for a man who could walk and ride contained in heavy plate/mail armour and wielding these weapons, it should be recalled that when he commanded one of the Yorkist wings at Tewkesbury he was just 18. And Appleby's comment that the bones wouldn't move in the grave is utter banal nonsense, given the position and nature of the burial and causes me to wonder just how correctly she has been trained.


I sincerely hope that a proper forensic inquest is held with experts in the appropriate fields (sorry but the Leicester team left me less than impressed) and that the report is made available to/thru the society - my impression now is it was all kinda slapdash until the DNA proved it.

Cheers

Aidan


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 3:07
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


> I quite liked Dr Appleby! As always, it's interesting how different people respond to things.

-----

Me too.  I think the issue with the standard actually came down to differing notions of respect.  As far as Dr Appleby was concerned, the body hadn't been properly identified and so draping it with the royal arms was inappropriate.
Phillipa Langley was going on instinct and was proved to be right.
I can understand, appreciate and admire both perspectives equally.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Karen Clark Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 3:07
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
Vickie

I quite liked Dr Appleby! As always, it's interesting how different people
respond to things. I think she was somewhat taken aback by Philiippa's
displays of emotion (and scientists can get emotional, too) but I didn't
read 'disgust'. She seemed more baffled and discomfited to me.

The perception of Richard not being 'masculine' is unfortunate. When the
word 'feminine' was used the first two times, it followed the word
'gracile', as if to help explain it. The 'feminine' was leapt on and, sadly,
not corrected. 'gracile' might be more commonly associated with women's body
shapes than men's, but that doesn't make a 'gracile' man 'non-masculine'.

Karen

From: Vickie lolettecook@...>
Reply-To: >
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:44:44 -0600
To: ">
Cc: ">
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've
read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone
have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
> wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

Not all of us live in a country where the program is likely to be shown, or where the DVD is likely to be sold. That leaves us with either downloading or YouTube as our only options. The YouTube version isn't exactly legal either, as its not posted by CH4. If I were given an opportunity to view this legally for a small fee (as I'm out of the geographical territory) on the CH4 site then I would have. The television industry does not make it easy for foreigners to support them, unlike the publishing industry. I order many books from the U.K., but very few DVDs, as most are not available as Region 1.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Good to know piracy rules the net. No profits from selling a programme, no more programmes.
> But you keep downloading until suddenly there will be nothing decent to download any more and hands will be thrown up demanding to know why?
> Sorry, but finally is a good way of describing how the something for nothing mentality we now live in is slowly destroying the film, tv, dvd, and video business.
> Rant over.
> Paul
> I know you want to see the programme, but can't you be patient and pay for it when it becomes available, so it makes the production company a profit, otherwise they won't even consider making anything else like it ever again.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?   I totally understand why Philippa  cared about it, after all Richard didn't receive any dignity from the moment he was killed until he was dug up again and I think she wanted him to have that.  To my mind if had turned out to be the body of a peasant it's no big deal if he got the royal colours draped on him.
 
I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.
 
Liz

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 10:36
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 

Me too.  I think the issue with the standard actually came down to differing notions of respect.  As far as Dr Appleby was concerned, the body hadn't been properly identified and so draping it with the royal arms was inappropriate.
Phillipa Langley was going on instinct and was proved to be right.
I can understand, appreciate and admire both perspectives equally.

Jonathan

________________________________
.

I remember Wally Cox, but I doubt heme er was ahorse, much less in armor.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.

One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Vickie wrote:
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> >
> > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me.  Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously.  That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested.  The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead.  To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant".  Why not the other way around?  When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.


I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working.  I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan





________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?   I totally understand why Philippa  cared about it, after all Richard didn't receive any dignity from the moment he was killed until he was dug up again and I think she wanted him to have that.  To my mind if had turned out to be the body of a peasant it's no big deal if he got the royal colours draped on him.
 
I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.
 
Liz

From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 10:36
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 

Me too.  I think the issue with the standard actually came down to differing notions of respect.  As far as Dr Appleby was concerned, the body hadn't been properly identified and so draping it with the royal arms was inappropriate.
Phillipa Langley was going on instinct and was proved to be right.
I can understand, appreciate and admire both perspectives equally.

Jonathan

________________________________
.

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Was it Dr Appleby or Lin Foxhall? Anyway, it seems to have been a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of a passage in Rous.

Carol responds:

It was definitely Jo Appleby, who thought that the skeleton might be female. Lin Foxhall was barely shown in the documentary, but she had earlier referred to the skeleton as definitely male. She's the one who said that he was "strong and active" despite his disability.

I agree that her remark about his supposed lack of masculinity was an idiosyncratic interpretation of the passage in which Rous refers to him (rightly) as slight and (wrongly, I think, based on his prowess in battle) as physically weak.

Carol

Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that.  However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a  trick of the editing. 
 
As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard.   It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.
 
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me.  Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously.  That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested.  The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead.  To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant".  Why not the other way around?  When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working.  I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?   I totally understand why Philippa  cared about it, after all Richard didn't receive any dignity from the moment he was killed until he was dug up again and I think she wanted him to have that.  To my mind if had turned out to be the body of a peasant it's no big deal if he got the royal colours draped on him.
 
I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.
 
Liz

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I don't think so. Von Poppelau (at least in the extant copy of what he wrote) said Richard was two or three fingers taller than himself, and he was a renowned fighter. What he did say was that he had "delicate arms and legs". The quotation I recall was from Rous, about how Richard fought to his last breath at Bosworth despite his frail physique.

Carol responds:

Yes. As I said in post 24480, she may have had Von Poppelau in mind, but "more likely, she was thinking of Rous, who said that Richard was
'slight of body and weak in strength' but fought valiantly to the end. 'Slight in body' is apparently true, but 'weak in strength'? He wielded a battle axe and unhorsed Sir John Cheney! BTW, if Rous had thought of Richard as hunchbacked, that would have been the perfect time to mention it, but he didn't."

Sorry to quote my own post, but the words were buried in the middle of a paragraph on another topic and easy to miss.

Carol


http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/24480

" It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a
peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect
for them."

Sorry, but it's the exact same thing.  You're saying the potential royal identity is more important.  It categorically is not.  And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter?  (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)  

Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard.  But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture.  And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.


Jonathan



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that.  However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a  trick of the editing. 
 
As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard.   It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.
 
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me.  Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously.  That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested.  The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead.  To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant".  Why not the other way around?  When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working.  I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?   I totally understand why Philippa  cared about it, after all Richard didn't receive any dignity from the moment he was killed until he was dug up again and I think she wanted him to have that.  To my mind if had turned out to be the body of a peasant it's no big deal if he got the royal colours draped on him.
 
I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.
 
Liz

Dear Jonathan 

My respectful opinion is that draping the cardboard box with the standard was merely to show respect for the bones, whoever they ultimately turned out to be. Even if it had been just the English flag, which certainly would have applied to whatever body was dug up, it would have been better than carrying it off as if it were headed for the landfill. As it turns out, Philippa was absolutely correct. (Speaking for myself, if the body had turned out to be Joe Schmo  killed in battle  I would have felt that he deserved respectful treatment. But then, Joe Schmo was probably my ancestor! LOL!



BTW, I didn't see any hesitation on Buckley's part at all. If there was a moment  well, gee, he does have to listen to the request, process it, and then respond. He took no more time than that  and then responded with an unreservedly positive response. Appelby, a junior member of the team, had no cause to countermand an approval from the head of the Project.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!





" It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a
peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect
for them."

Sorry, but it's the exact same thing. You're saying the potential royal identity is more important. It categorically is not. And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter? (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)

Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard. But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture. And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!



Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that. However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a trick of the editing.

As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard. It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.

From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me. Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously. That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested. The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead. To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant". Why not the other way around? When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating. Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing. THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working. I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate? I totally understand why Philippa cared about it, after all Richard didn't receive any dignity from the moment he was killed until he was dug up again and I think she wanted him to have that. To my mind if had turned out to be the body of a peasant it's no big deal if he got the royal colours draped on him.

I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break pieces off the skeleton they are excavating. Jo Appleby seemed to think it was amusing. THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

Liz

We'll have to agree to disagree because I think since it was a search for a King, not a peasant, it is therefore better to err on the side of the King rather than the hypothetical peasant. 
 
I also agree with whoever said (sorry, too many posts!  Joahnne?) that since Richard Buckley agreed it, Jo Appleby

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
" It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a
apeasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect
for them."

Sorry, but it's the exact same thing.  You're saying the potential royal identity is more important.  It categorically is not.  And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter?  (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)  

Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard.  But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture.  And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 
Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that.  However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a  trick of the editing. 
 
As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard.   It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.
 
From: Jonathan Evans mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me.  Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously.  That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested.  The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead.  To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant".  Why not the other way around?  When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working.  I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________


shouldn't have been disputing it anyway since he was in charge.
 
Liz

I know - and I'm not really arguing with you or Liz.  I'm just saying that I can understand the opposing view and I don't think we really need to criticise anyone involved the project.

By the way, I'm not sure I'd call Jo Appleby a "junior" member of the team - more like one of five principals beneath the project director...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:56
Subject: RE: FINALLY!!!


 
Dear Jonathan 

My respectful opinion is that draping the cardboard box with the standard was merely to show respect for the bones, whoever they ultimately turned out to be. Even if it had been just the English flag, which certainly would have applied to whatever body was dug up, it would have been better than carrying it off as if it were headed for the landfill. As it turns out, Philippa was absolutely correct. (Speaking for myself, if the body had turned out to be Joe Schmo  killed in battle  I would have felt that he deserved respectful treatment. But then, Joe Schmo was probably my ancestor! LOL!

BTW, I didn't see any hesitation on Buckley's part at all. If there was a moment  well, gee, he does have to listen to the request, process it, and then respond. He took no more time than that  and then responded with an unreservedly positive response. Appelby, a junior member of the team, had no cause to countermand an approval from the head of the Project.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jonathan Evans
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

" It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a
peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect
for them."

Sorry, but it's the exact same thing. You're saying the potential royal identity is more important. It categorically is not. And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter? (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)

Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard. But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture. And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@... >
To: " " >
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that. However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a trick of the editing.

As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard. It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.

From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... >
To: " >
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me. Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously. That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested. The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead. To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant". Why not the other way around? When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating. Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing. THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working. I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate? I totally understand why Philippa cared about it, after all Richard didn't receive any dignity from the moment he was killed until he was dug up again and I think she wanted him to have that. To my mind if had turned out to be the body of a peasant it's no big deal if he got the royal colours draped on him.

I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break pieces off the skeleton they are excavating. Jo Appleby seemed to think it was amusing. THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

Liz

Marie,
It was definitely  Dr. Appleby.  I went back and watched that section again, to make sure I was quoting her as closely as I could.  I think you are right that she was referring to the passage in Rous, though she did't get it right.
Vickie

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 3:01 AM
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 

Was it Dr Appleby or Lin Foxhall? Anyway, it seems to have been a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of a passage in Rous.

Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie wrote:
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> >
> > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

See you can be small and strong at the same time!
Vickie

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
Funny thing about the late, great Wally Cox. Although a small man, he was a body builder! He was Marlon Brando's best friend and they worked out together. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I don't think so. Von Poppelau (at least in the extant copy of what he wrote) said Richard was two or three fingers taller than himself, and he was a renowned fighter. What he did say was that he had "delicate arms and legs". The quotation I recall was from Rous, about how Richard fought to his last breath at Bosworth despite his frail physique.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.
> >
> > You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> > > What I'm asking about is -
> > > she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> > > What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> > > Vickie
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > >
> > > > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> > > >
> > > > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Vickie
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Johanne Tournier wrote:

//snip//
"I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I believe, in
Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only 1-2% of
English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a story
to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native girl
back to France with him? Or perhaps it's result of a more humdrum mass
migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be glued to
the story as it unfolds."

Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the first
Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
Doug

It's the TV company who chose to show these bits which were clearly moments of tension. We needn't have seen the flag bit but Philippa could still have had her moment and Jo could have pulled a face, but we need never have known. For the sake of 'good' television they have clearly set a lot of people against one another, including members of this forum. It didn't really add much to the programme other than to display tension; pity more time was not spent on definition of Jo's word 'hunchback' and that's where the lack of a more perceptive 'compere' clearly showed. I assume that as the body is not being buried for at least another year more complete tests can be done which will enable us to live in harmony once more? 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 15:16
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


 

We'll have to agree to disagree because I think since it was a search for a King, not a peasant, it is therefore better to err on the side of the King rather than the hypothetical peasant. 
 
I also agree with whoever said (sorry, too many posts!  Joahnne?) that since Richard Buckley agreed it, Jo Appleby

From: Jonathan Evans mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
" It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a
apeasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect
for them."

Sorry, but it's the exact same thing.  You're saying the potential royal identity is more important.  It categorically is not.  And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter?  (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)  

Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard.  But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture.  And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that.  However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a  trick of the editing. 
 
As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard.   It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.
 
From: Jonathan Evans mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me.  Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously.  That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested.  The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead.  To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant".  Why not the other way around?  When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working.  I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________

shouldn't have been disputing it anyway since he was in charge.
 
Liz

Sorry about the typos everyone, not to mention the half sentence.  Who would believe I once went on a year long secretarial course?  We are having problems with our  computers today and I am getting more and more annoyed  so half the last sentence vanished. 
 
What I meant to say was that since Buckley agreed it, Jo Appleby shouldn't have been disputing it anyway since he was in charge, not her.  
 
Jonathan, I do understand what you are getting at  but in this particular case I think it was totally the right thing to do.

Liz



From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 15:16
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
We'll have to agree to disagree because I think since it was a search for a King, not a peasant, it is therefore better to err on the side of the King rather than the hypothetical peasant. 
 
I also agree with whoever said (sorry, too many posts!  Joahnne?) that since Richard Buckley agreed it, Jo Appleby

From: Jonathan Evans mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:28
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
" It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a
apeasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect
for them."

Sorry, but it's the exact same thing.  You're saying the potential royal identity is more important.  It categorically is not.  And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter?  (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)  

Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard.  But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture.  And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 14:15
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
Jonathan of course it was edited for maximum effect, I do know that.  However she definitely seemed to treat her own clumsiness with frivolity and that couldn't be a  trick of the editing. 
 
As for your other point, identity is indeed a precious thing and that's why Philippa wanted to give this person the respect he would deserve if it "was" Richard.   It doesn't work the other way around because covering the body of a peasant with the royal colours would not denote a lack of the respect for them.
 
From: Jonathan Evans mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:59
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
From: liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

> But why would she be so bothered, really, about it being inappropriate?It would bother me.  Identity is a precious thing, even posthumously.  That's one reason why I think the bones in the urn should be tested.  The current situation respects neither the princes nor whoever / whatever may be in there in their stead.  To take your argument, the fact that the body, when first excavated, *might* have been Richard trumps the fact that it could equally have been "a peasant".  Why not the other way around?  When you uncover a skeleton, you can't know what the person it once was believed and felt.

> I also still would like to know just how often archaeologists break
pieces off the skeleton they are excavating.  Jo Appleby seemed to think
it was amusing.    THAT was when I decided I didn't like her.

I watched this at about 2am after a very long night working.  I probably need to see it again, but I'm not going to let a mistake on a short and artfully edited TV programme give me cause to dislike someone I've never met.

Jonathan

________________________________

Hi, Karen -

I just finished watching the C4 documentary, too, and agree with your
sentiments completely.



I was concerned that they did throw around the "hunchback" appellation to a
fare-thee-well, and they did that, but for anyone who watched to the end
they made it pretty clear that Richard was *not* a Quasimodo-type hunchback,
and even showed a similar scoliosis sufferer from the back (very useful) and
of course it was noted - if he'd had a real "hunchback," how could he have
worn armor?



I was surprised how cavalierly Appleby handled the bones - considering their
fragile condition; she was wearing the kind of heavy-duty rubber gloves I
might use for housework, not the delicate kind that medical people wear -
and that was in the lab.



Yes, I thought that Philippa overall did *not* come across as a "kook," but
a person who is very passionate about Richard. That is not exactly the same
as being "in love with him" (at least not in my case), though there is a
true level of caring deeply. I am glad to see it and hope she doesn't get
discouraged ultimately. I do hope to meet her in due course.



Thank you, Philippa, John Ashdown-Hill (who didn't get the attention but was
terrific to listen to, I thought), and the whole team at the University of
Leicester, who have helped make Richard live again.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!





I've just finished watching the channel 4 documentary and my worried
expectations were (I'm pleased to say) not met. I didn't find the presenter
as annoying as I thought I might, given some of the comments; the history
was presented in a well-balanced way. Pollard's little piece was very much
as one would hope it would be, holding to his considered opinion but
allowing for other possibilities. As he said, we just don't know what
happened to the princes.

Following the progress of the various scientists was hugely interesting.

As to Philippa Langley, after reading (on facebook) everything from
'over-emotional'; 'acted like Richard's widow' to 'unhinged', what I saw
very much wasn't what I expected. I think it's probably come from a
preconception that all Ricardians are 'nutters' (as has been mentioned). I'm
sure we do have some in our ranks, but not at any statistically significant
higher level than occurs in the general population. Yes, she was emotional
but, as has also been pointed out, she has invested so much of herself in
this project over the years. The levels of anxiety, expectation, fear of
disappointment and anticipation she experienced throughout the project (and
before) must have, at times, been overwhelming.

I'm glad I got the chance to watch it before too much time passed.

Karen

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZ2VqdW92B
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2MDIwMTk5NQ--> Visit Your Group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbWJxaXMzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYwMjAxOTk1>
Yahoo! Groups

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

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=24444/stime=1360201995/nc1=4025304/nc2=3848621/nc3=5008817>

Hi Johanne

"Thank you, Philippa, John Ashdown-Hill (who didn't get the attention but
was
terrific to listen to, I thought), and the whole team at the University of
Leicester, who have helped make Richard live again."

Yes!

Karen

Jonathan Evans wrote:

> Sorry, but it's the exact same thing.  You're saying the potential royal identity is more important.  It categorically is not.  And who's to say what this mythical peasant's views might have been on the matter?  (It would probably depend on whatever the king under whom he/she had died had done for him/her!)  
>
> Anyway, as I've said, it was ultimately the correct decision to drape the box with the standard.  But I can understand Jo Appleby's discomfiture.  And also Richard Buckley's momentary hesitation.

Carol responds:

In Jo's defense from someone who doesn't like her, she clearly didn't understand that Philippa was offering her the honor of carrying the remains of a maligned king. Philippa knew based on the location (and her own instincts) that it really was Richard III. I think that Jo Appleby didn't want to be criticized, as she undoubtedly would have been, for assuming results that had yet to be proven. Too bad she wasn't as careful with her trowel or her terminology. BTW, she got her PhD in 2008. It would have been nice to have someone with more than five years experience, but neither the university nor Channel 4 really expected to find Richard when they began the project.

Carol

I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a slender build. I can't think of anyone who said that he seemed feminine at all. Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have been wrong. As I mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone structure (Wilkinson, the facial reconstructor, did use that word, and frankly I'm surprised if Appleby didn't, because she is the bone specialist after all.) Being gracile does NOT mean that one is feminine or effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it in somehow for Philippa. When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!





I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

Johanne

The word 'gracile' was used twice, both times followed up by 'feminine' as
if to better explain an unfamiliar word. This was leapt on by the host (name
forgotten already! Oh, dear) with his 'gender confusion in the lab' (or
whatever it was) and the point about 'gracile' not meaning 'not masculine'
was lost. I thought that was a great pity.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:55:25 -0400
To: <>
Subject: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!






I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the
whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that
she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was
not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said
that he had a slender build. I can¹t think of anyone who said that he seemed
feminine at all. Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have
been wrong. As I mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone
structure (Wilkinson, the facial reconstructor, did use that word, and
frankly I¹m surprised if Appleby didn¹t, because she is the bone specialist
after all.) Being ³gracile² does NOT mean that one is feminine or
effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it ³in² somehow for Philippa. When
PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked
out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Cc:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've
read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone
have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

Could that not have been embarrassment? I have been known to smile inappropriately when in difficult situations - or 'smirk' as my mother used to say.


--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think I commented on this one yesterday but I am just confused about how to reconcile " strongly masculine features" with a gracile( slender and graceful) physique........Orlando Bloom, anyone?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a slender build. I can't think of anyone who said that he seemed feminine at all. Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have been wrong. As I mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone structure (Wilkinson, the facial reconstructor, did use that word, and frankly I'm surprised if Appleby didn't, because she is the bone specialist after all.) Being gracile does NOT mean that one is feminine or effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it in somehow for Philippa. When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
>
> > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> >
> > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I saw discomfort and a woman who had no idea what to do, not a smirk.

Karen

From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:14:03 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!







Could that not have been embarrassment? I have been known to smile
inappropriately when in difficult situations - or 'smirk' as my mother used
to say.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked
out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

My father was 'gracile' and clearly masculine. I do think it's the two
different senses of 'feminine' that's causing this confusion. If 'gracile'
is a body type that is most commonly (but not always) associated with women,
that doesn't make a gracile man 'woman-like', it just means he has an
unusual build for a man.

Karen

From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:14:55 -0500
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!






I think I commented on this one yesterday but I am just confused about how
to reconcile " strongly masculine features" with a gracile( slender and
graceful) physique........Orlando Bloom, anyone?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...
<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com> > wrote:

> I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole
documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had
read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very
masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a
slender build. I can¹t think of anyone who said that he seemed feminine at all.
Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have been wrong. As I
mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone structure (Wilkinson, the
facial reconstructor, did use that word, and frankly I¹m surprised if Appleby
didn¹t, because she is the bone specialist after all.) Being ³gracile² does NOT
mean that one is feminine or effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it ³in²
somehow for Philippa. When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the
lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@... <mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
>
> or jltournier@... <mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Vickie
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Cc:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!
>
> I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read
a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a
reference for that?
> Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a
scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> Thanks
> Vickie
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> >
> > Carol responds:
> > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
> >
> > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it
now.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Could that not have been embarrassment?"
 
I bloody well hope so.

From: highland_katherine <katherine.michaud@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 17:14
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!

 

Could that not have been embarrassment? I have been known to smile inappropriately when in difficult situations - or 'smirk' as my mother used to say.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>

It seemed to be a medical term on the film...

grac·ile
adj.
1. Gracefully slender.
2. Graceful.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:10 AM
To:
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!



Johanne

The word 'gracile' was used twice, both times followed up by 'feminine' as
if to better explain an unfamiliar word. This was leapt on by the host (name
forgotten already! Oh, dear) with his 'gender confusion in the lab' (or
whatever it was) and the point about 'gracile' not meaning 'not masculine'
was lost. I thought that was a great pity.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>>
Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:55:25 -0400
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!

I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the
whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that
she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was
not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said
that he had a slender build. I can¹t think of anyone who said that he seemed
feminine at all. Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have
been wrong. As I mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone
structure (Wilkinson, the facial reconstructor, did use that word, and
frankly I¹m surprised if Appleby didn¹t, because she is the bone specialist
after all.) Being ³gracile² does NOT mean that one is feminine or
effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it ³in² somehow for Philippa. When
PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked
out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

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

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

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Cc: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've
read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone
have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

Thanks Johanne, That's what I was thinking too.
Vickie

From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:55 AM
Subject: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!

 
I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a slender build. I can't think of anyone who said that he seemed feminine at all. Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have been wrong. As I mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone structure (Wilkinson, the facial reconstructor, did use that word, and frankly I'm surprised if Appleby didn't, because she is the bone specialist after all.) Being gracile does NOT mean that one is feminine or effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it in somehow for Philippa. When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Cc: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com > wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

I have no problem with the term gracile,it seems to be accurate. But Dr Appleby did say "lacking in masculinity" which I would think is not accurate.
Vickie

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!

 
It seemed to be a medical term on the film...

grac·ile
adj.
1. Gracefully slender.
2. Graceful.

________________________________
From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 11:10 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!

Johanne

The word 'gracile' was used twice, both times followed up by 'feminine' as
if to better explain an unfamiliar word. This was leapt on by the host (name
forgotten already! Oh, dear) with his 'gender confusion in the lab' (or
whatever it was) and the point about 'gracile' not meaning 'not masculine'
was lost. I thought that was a great pity.

Karen

From: Johanne Tournier mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:55:25 -0400
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!

I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the
whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that
she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was
not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said
that he had a slender build. I can¹t think of anyone who said that he seemed
feminine at all. Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have
been wrong. As I mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone
structure (Wilkinson, the facial reconstructor, did use that word, and
frankly I¹m surprised if Appleby didn¹t, because she is the bone specialist
after all.) Being ³gracile² does NOT mean that one is feminine or
effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it ³in² somehow for Philippa. When
PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and walked
out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

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

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

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com

or mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
] On Behalf Of Vickie
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Cc: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

I was able to watch thank you very much!!
I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've
read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone
have a reference for that?
Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is
a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
Thanks
Vickie
Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com
> wrote:

> Ishita wrote:
> > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
it but wanted to share
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
>
> Carol responds:
> Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
Ishita suggested.
>
> Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
>
> Carol
>
>

I posted a bit ago that this mitochondrial DNA goes back to Katherine Swynford. I don't think anything is known about her mother (and I don't know if I would trust Alison Weir's speculation about that). Katherine's father seems to have come from somewhere in the neighborhood of modern day Belgium, I think? (Hainaut?)


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
> mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I believe, in
> Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only 1-2% of
> English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a story
> to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native girl
> back to France with him? Or perhaps it’s result of a more humdrum mass
> migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be glued to
> the story as it unfolds."
>
> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the first
> Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
> remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
> Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
> Doug
>

Try Bloom as Legolas (tunic & tights), or Will Turner (again with a tunic & tights). It's not as obvious when he's out of costume.

~Weds

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I think I commented on this one yesterday but I am just confused about how to reconcile " strongly masculine features" with a gracile( slender and graceful) physique........Orlando Bloom, anyone?

Exactly my thoughts when gracile was mentioned I instantly thought of
Orlando Bloom! OB appeared to fight excellently in Kingdom of Heaven yet is
slenderly built...

On 7 February 2013 14:14, wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Try Bloom as Legolas (tunic & tights), or Will Turner (again with a tunic
> & tights). It's not as obvious when he's out of costume.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > I think I commented on this one yesterday but I am just confused about
> how to reconcile " strongly masculine features" with a gracile( slender and
> graceful) physique........Orlando Bloom, anyone?
>
>
>



--
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>

Ironically enough, Bloom also has back problems, having fallen three stories and broken his back 18 months before the start of filming for LOTR.

Yes, I am a fount of useless knowledge, thank you for asking. :)

~Weds

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" wrote:
>
> Exactly my thoughts when gracile was mentioned I instantly thought of
> Orlando Bloom! OB appeared to fight excellently in Kingdom of Heaven yet is
> slenderly built...

Doug wrote:>
> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the first Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series? Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?

Carol responds:

Here's what I recall of the story. Please, everyone, feel free to correct me if I misstate the facts, which I don't have time to check.) The first Plantagenet (Geoffrey), who earned the nickname for wearing a sprig of broom (Plantagenista) in his cap if the story is true, married Maude (or Matilda), daughter of William II and his only heir after his only son drowned. (Definitely not some "strange" woman from a genealogical perspective.) After a bloody civil war that evidently put the Wars of the Roses to shame (and during which her maternal cousin, Stephen, seized the crown), Maude's son Henry defeated him and forced him to make him (Henry) his (Stephen's) heir, ousting Stephen's son, Eustace, from his position as heir. (Side note: Imagine a King Eustace. "William, William, Henry, Stephen, Eustace--nope. Ruins the song.)

It's been a very long time since I read Costain's "Plantagenets," but I think you may be referring to Melusine, a legendary witch (or sater goddess) ancestor. (The same accusation was applied to Jacquetta, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, as evidence that she was a witch.)

At any rate, the mitochondrial DNA of the Plantagenets would be irrelevant. We'd need to trace that of Cecily Neville by way of her maternal grandmother, Katherine Swynford. Katherine's father, Payne de Roet, has been identified, but I don't know who her mother was. that "strange" mtDNA would have come through her.

Carol

One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
Vickie

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

 
Doug wrote:>
> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the first Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series? Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?

Carol responds:

Here's what I recall of the story. Please, everyone, feel free to correct me if I misstate the facts, which I don't have time to check.) The first Plantagenet (Geoffrey), who earned the nickname for wearing a sprig of broom (Plantagenista) in his cap if the story is true, married Maude (or Matilda), daughter of William II and his only heir after his only son drowned. (Definitely not some "strange" woman from a genealogical perspective.) After a bloody civil war that evidently put the Wars of the Roses to shame (and during which her maternal cousin, Stephen, seized the crown), Maude's son Henry defeated him and forced him to make him (Henry) his (Stephen's) heir, ousting Stephen's son, Eustace, from his position as heir. (Side note: Imagine a King Eustace. "William, William, Henry, Stephen, Eustace--nope. Ruins the song.)

It's been a very long time since I read Costain's "Plantagenets," but I think you may be referring to Melusine, a legendary witch (or sater goddess) ancestor. (The same accusation was applied to Jacquetta, Elizabeth Woodville's mother, as evidence that she was a witch.)

At any rate, the mitochondrial DNA of the Plantagenets would be irrelevant. We'd need to trace that of Cecily Neville by way of her maternal grandmother, Katherine Swynford. Katherine's father, Payne de Roet, has been identified, but I don't know who her mother was. that "strange" mtDNA would have come through her.

Carol

From what I recall of John's chapter on Richard's mitochondrial DNA, it belongs to the type labelled "Jasmine" by Bryan Sykes ("The Seven Daughters of Eve"). Originates in Near East but started spread across Europe with farming and the Indo-European languages; remains a minority type, though, possibly more common amongst the social elite.
Marie

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
> mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I believe, in
> Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only 1-2% of
> English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a story
> to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native girl
> back to France with him? Or perhaps it’s result of a more humdrum mass
> migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be glued to
> the story as it unfolds."
>
> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the first
> Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
> remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
> Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
> Doug
>

If it was the only thing I found objectionable, I would have said that,
because she didn't seem to register highly where the social graces are
concerned. But as a scientist first and foremost I wouldn't necessarily
expect her to do so. But I saw several other instances, which I have
mentioned previously, besides her reaction when Philippa broke down. What I
saw was a rather immature person with a paper qualification, perhaps quite
insecure, who seemed to be lording it over someone over whom she held a bit
of "power," jerking Philippa around, you might say. What we saw may have
just been the tip of the iceberg, and there may have been a lot going on
off-screen that we didn't see. But what I didn't see was Philippa being
unreasonable, demanding or dictatorial. Therefore, I thought the reaction
which I did see from Dr. Appleby was sometimes snappish and rather unkind.
As I said, I think there were some goofs at her end in the "uncovering the
body" department, in the "handling the body" department, and in the
"analyzing the conclusions to be drawn from the discovery" department. She's
young; as it turns out, this is potentially a Big Deal in her career.
Perhaps it was even the case that she hadn't really been properly prepped
and may not have really wanted to be there; she may have lost Summer
vacation or something and not really been wholeheartedly dedicated to the
project. Since she is definitely not a Ricardian, it wouldn't be too
surprising. (Of course, I'm totally speculating here, but it would explain a
bit of the attitude.) The project was a fabulous success; if I meet her, I
will heartily congratulate her on the accomplishment of the team. I'm still
unhappy about some aspects of it - but, hey, look at Philippa at the end -
she was positively *glowing.* And I guess we all should be as well.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
highland_katherine
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 1:14 PM
To:
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!






Could that not have been embarrassment? I have been known to smile
inappropriately when in difficult situations - or 'smirk' as my mother used
to say.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the lab table, and
walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

My father too. And he was dark-haired, 5 ft 8 in and his right shoulder was higher than his left.
But he didn't look like Richard III.
Marie


--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> My father was 'gracile' and clearly masculine. I do think it's the two
> different senses of 'feminine' that's causing this confusion. If 'gracile'
> is a body type that is most commonly (but not always) associated with women,
> that doesn't make a gracile man 'woman-like', it just means he has an
> unusual build for a man.
>
> Karen
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 12:14:55 -0500
> To: ""
>
> Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think I commented on this one yesterday but I am just confused about how
> to reconcile " strongly masculine features" with a gracile( slender and
> graceful) physique........Orlando Bloom, anyone?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@...
> > wrote:
>
> > I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole
> documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had
> read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very
> masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a
> slender build. I can¹t think of anyone who said that he seemed feminine at all.
> Perhaps she was inferring, but I think she may well have been wrong. As I
> mentioned, gracile is a reference to build or bone structure (Wilkinson, the
> facial reconstructor, did use that word, and frankly I¹m surprised if Appleby
> didn¹t, because she is the bone specialist after all.) Being ³gracile² does NOT
> mean that one is feminine or effeminate. Sheesh! I still think she had it ³in²
> somehow for Philippa. When PL broke down, looking at the bones laid out on the
> lab table, and walked out, Appleby actually smirked. Harrumph!
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@...
> >
> > or jltournier@...
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > From:
>
> [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of Vickie
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:45 PM
> > To:
>
> > Cc:
>
> > Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!
> >
> > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said
> someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read
> a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a
> reference for that?
> > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a
> scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > Thanks
> > Vickie
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched
> it but wanted to share
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from
> the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as
> Ishita suggested.
> > >
> > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it
> now.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am just perusing my very old copy of Antonia Fraser's "The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England" and looking at the Plantagenet Family Tree, I see that Henry III and Eleanor of Provence had a son, Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster. If as I have read scoliosis is hereditary, could that be a clue. I can only assume that the term Crouchback, would describe a crooked back. Any thoughts????

On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



From what I recall of John's chapter on Richard's mitochondrial DNA, it belongs to the type labelled "Jasmine" by Bryan Sykes ("The Seven Daughters of Eve"). Originates in Near East but started spread across Europe with farming and the Indo-European languages; remains a minority type, though, possibly more common amongst the social elite.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
> mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I believe, in
> Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only 1-2% of
> English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a story
> to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native girl
> back to France with him? Or perhaps itýýýs result of a more humdrum mass
> migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be glued to
> the story as it unfolds."
>
> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the first
> Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
> remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
> Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
> Doug
>

Karen Clark wrote:

> The word 'gracile' was used twice, both times followed up by 'feminine' as if to better explain an unfamiliar word. This was leapt on by the host (name > forgotten already! Oh, dear) with his 'gender confusion in the lab' (or whatever it was) and the point about 'gracile' not meaning 'not masculine' was lost. I thought that was a great pity.

Carol responds:

That was Simon Farnaby, trying to be funny at what I agree was an inappropriate moment. Poor Simon. I think he's delightful, but he seemed out of his league as the host of a documentary. He's used to performing comic skits, and this program was quite a change from "Stupid Deaths" in the "Horrible Histories" series. I liked Simon a lot, but he did make what I would consider to be a few gaffes, following the example of Dr. Appleby in calling Richard a hunchback and reciting Shakespeare at the ruins of Middleham. And you're right that the opportunity to correct Dr. Appleby's definition of "gracile" as "feminine" was lost, assuming that her male colleague (my turn to forget a name) chose to do so. I'm grateful that he at least conceded that "hunchback" was not a scientific term.

Carol

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> I think I commented on this one yesterday but I am just confused about how to reconcile " strongly masculine features" with a gracile( slender and graceful) physique........Orlando Bloom, anyone?

Carol responds:

Actually, I'd say that Orlando Bloom has rather feminine features (which may be why he sometimes wears facial hair) but the right body type (unless he's too tall--haven't checked). But if you look at Richard's skull and the facial reconstruction, you do see a masculine )yet sensitive) face and a slender (but, according to Lin Foxhall) strong and active body. I think you may be worrying too much about Jo Appleby's choice of words, which was unfortunate on more than one occasion. "Gracile" does not mean "feminine" and need not mean "graceful." It usually means "slight" or "slender," and is in no way incompatible with strength (or masculinity).

Think of a bantam boxer: http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/images/ArticleImages/8817407.jpg

And no one ever accused a gracile Australopithecine (even a female one like the famous Lucy) of being "feminine." (Not that "feminine" is an insult, properly applied. It works quite well as a compliment for the Duchess of Cambridge.)

Carol

I have never seen Simon Farnaby until today. He called Richard "a bonnie lad," so he's won my heart forever. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
>
> > The word 'gracile' was used twice, both times followed up by 'feminine' as if to better explain an unfamiliar word. This was leapt on by the host (name > forgotten already! Oh, dear) with his 'gender confusion in the lab' (or whatever it was) and the point about 'gracile' not meaning 'not masculine' was lost. I thought that was a great pity.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That was Simon Farnaby, trying to be funny at what I agree was an inappropriate moment. Poor Simon. I think he's delightful, but he seemed out of his league as the host of a documentary. He's used to performing comic skits, and this program was quite a change from "Stupid Deaths" in the "Horrible Histories" series. I liked Simon a lot, but he did make what I would consider to be a few gaffes, following the example of Dr. Appleby in calling Richard a hunchback and reciting Shakespeare at the ruins of Middleham. And you're right that the opportunity to correct Dr. Appleby's definition of "gracile" as "feminine" was lost, assuming that her male colleague (my turn to forget a name) chose to do so. I'm grateful that he at least conceded that "hunchback" was not a scientific term.
>
> Carol
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> It seemed to be a medical term on the film...
>
> grac·ile
> adj.
> 1. Gracefully slender.
> 2. Graceful.

Carol responds:

It's an archaeological term, and my dictionary gives the primary definition as "slight" or "slender," with "graceful" as a secondary definition. As I said in an earlier post, paleoanthropologists use it to refer to some of the early hominids, including some Australopithecines, to distinguish them from their "robust" contemporaries. If Jo Appleby were familiar with medical terminology, she would have used "scoliosis" rather than "hunchback" to describe the skeleton (as Lin Foxhall does elsewhere).

Unrelated question: Dr. Wilkerson, I think her name was, pronounced "skeletal" as "skell EE tal." Is that the usual British pronunciation? I would say "SKELL uh tul."

Carol

Johann wrote:
> I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a slender build. [snip]

Carol responds:

Or, as Marie and I have both mentioned, of Rous, who said that despite being slightly built and physically weak (not feminine, however!), he fought valiantly to the end. And I've already commented that I agree with the slight build but not the physical weakness given Richard's prowess on the battlefield. Rous may have been thinking of the raised shoulder at this point but didn't mention it. And I suspect that he was judging Richard's physical strength (or lack of it) based on the "delicate legs and arms" that Von Popellau describes. Had Rous seen him in action on the battlefield, he might have expressed a different view of his bodily strength.

Carol

I have a quack theory (and I know it's a quack theory) that Richard's scoliosis was more advanced during Bosworth than other battles. Is it possible he was now at an age where he was more ruler than warrior? Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Johann wrote:
> > I followed this up before, and I guess I really should have watched the whole documentary before I commented. Appleby did say (as you indicate) that she had read one of the historical sources, which indicated that Richard was not very masculine. I think she must be thinking of the source(s) that said that he had a slender build. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Or, as Marie and I have both mentioned, of Rous, who said that despite being slightly built and physically weak (not feminine, however!), he fought valiantly to the end. And I've already commented that I agree with the slight build but not the physical weakness given Richard's prowess on the battlefield. Rous may have been thinking of the raised shoulder at this point but didn't mention it. And I suspect that he was judging Richard's physical strength (or lack of it) based on the "delicate legs and arms" that Von Popellau describes. Had Rous seen him in action on the battlefield, he might have expressed a different view of his bodily strength.
>
> Carol
>

Yes Carol, in Britain it is pronounced skell ee tal.
Jacq
To:
From: justcarol67@...
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:24:18 +0000
Subject: Re: PPS - RE: FINALLY!!!




























Pamela Bain wrote:

>

> It seemed to be a medical term on the film...

>

> gracýile

> adj.

> 1. Gracefully slender.

> 2. Graceful.



Carol responds:



It's an archaeological term, and my dictionary gives the primary definition as "slight" or "slender," with "graceful" as a secondary definition. As I said in an earlier post, paleoanthropologists use it to refer to some of the early hominids, including some Australopithecines, to distinguish them from their "robust" contemporaries. If Jo Appleby were familiar with medical terminology, she would have used "scoliosis" rather than "hunchback" to describe the skeleton (as Lin Foxhall does elsewhere).



Unrelated question: Dr. Wilkerson, I think her name was, pronounced "skeletal" as "skell EE tal." Is that the usual British pronunciation? I would say "SKELL uh tul."



Carol

Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.

Carol responds:

thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.

carol

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I am just perusing my very old copy of Antonia Fraser's "The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England" and looking at the Plantagenet Family Tree, I see that Henry III and Eleanor of Provence had a son, Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster. If as I have read scoliosis is hereditary, could that be a clue. I can only assume that the term Crouchback, would describe a crooked back. Any thoughts????

Carol responds:

I was thinking something similar the other day and Googled an image of his funeral effigy, which looks perfectly standard for the times (and probably doesn't resemble the real Edmund). The origin of his sobriquet is debated. I think the standard view is that it stands for "cross back" because as a Crusader, he would have worn a red cross on the back of his armor. However, Henry IV (the first Lancastrian king, who deposed, imprisoned, and eventually executed his childless cousin, Richard II), claimed that Edmund Crouchback, his maternal great-great-grandfather, was really the elder son but was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward I, because of his disability. Whether Edmund had a crooked back, I don't know, but he certainly wasn't the elder son. That was just a ploy, to put it politely, to strengthen Henry's claim and make it ostensibly superior to Richard's since his father, unlike Richard's, was a younger son of Edward I's grandson, Edward III (who, by the way, is the common ancestor of just about everybody of importance in the Wars of the Roses).

Anyway, I don't suppose the Windsors will let any archaeologists disinter Edmund to find the answer to the question of his possible deformity. If they did, though, he'd have the same Y chromosome as Richard III and all the Plantagenet kings (barring infidelity somewhere along the line). Also, if Edmund did have scoliosis or a similar disorder, it didn't prevent him from being a successful soldier. Rather like his distant relation, Richard III, if his skeleton is being interpreted correctly.

Carol

Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
Elaine

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Vickie Cook wrote:
> >
> > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
>
> carol
>

I've read it both ways, I'm not sure which is more correct
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:

> Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> >
> > carol
> >
>
>

Yes your quite right look at fleas!



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Vickie Cook
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:29 AM
To:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!





See you can be small and strong at the same time!
Vickie

From: mairemulholland mairemulholland@... <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!


Funny thing about the late, great Wally Cox. Although a small man, he was a body builder! He was Marlon Brando's best friend and they worked out together. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I don't think so. Von Poppelau (at least in the extant copy of what he wrote) said Richard was two or three fingers taller than himself, and he was a renowned fighter. What he did say was that he had "delicate arms and legs". The quotation I recall was from Rous, about how Richard fought to his last breath at Bosworth despite his frail physique.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> >
> > I just have this image now of Wally Cox in armor going, "Call me a milquetoast, willya?" and cleaving some bully's pate a-twain. This is oddly comforting to me.
> >
> > You may be thinking of the comments of Nicolas von Poppelau (I think that's how it's usually spelled), who met and liked King Richard, but said he was so small it was really surprising that he was as good a fighter as he was. Dr. Foxhall quoted him at the presser.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie wrote:
> > >
> > > LOL I do remember Wally Cox though I have a hard time picturing him with a battle axe!
> > > What I'm asking about is -
> > > she said there is some historical reference ( I forget which one) to him fighting surprisingly well considering his lack of masculinity - there is some historical backup for this
> > > What I'm trying to find out is- does anyone know where this reference she is speaking of came from
> > > Vickie
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 9:02 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
> > >
> > > > They've made that point a couple times in different ways: Dr. Appleby (who does seem to be putting a lot of people off) said he was rather more slender than the usual garden-variety guy of the time--she made a comment during the presser about how it was "almost a feminine" appearance, or words to that effect.
> > > >
> > > > One term that got used a lot, and that Dr. Wilkerson (the facial reconstructionist with that yummy computer and all that expertise) referred to during her chat over the scan that she was covering with virtual blobs of clay, was "gracile". It seems to be cognate with "graceful", but what it seems to indicate is the type of physique you'd consider willowy, wiry, or girlish--you know, lacking bulgy muscle plate and tons of fur. I get the impression we're talking less Mr. Universe and more Wally Cox (if anyone remembers him).
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Vickie wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was able to watch thank you very much!!
> > > > > I have a question, Dr Appleby (didn't really care too much for her) said someone had said at the time that Richard was lacking in masculinity. I've read a lot about Richard, but I don't remember reading that. Does anyone have a reference for that?
> > > > > Also I have to say Dr Appleby's disgust with Philippa was out of line. Jo is a scientist Philippa is an artist. Of course they would react differently
> > > > > Anyway I hope someone can give me a reference
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Vickie
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:25 PM, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ishita wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Here is the link to the documentary on YouTube!!!!!!!! Haven't watched it but wanted to share
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > > > > > http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uUycrk5AfY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > > Several other people said that the link is blocked. I couldn't watch it from the page that the link takes you to from here, but try it from You Tube as Ishita suggested.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Works for me. Let's hope they don't take it down. Heading off to watch it now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Thank you for all the information. I can see where QE2 is in a pickle if she decides to open the box of bones......who else needs DNA sampling???
Once again, I am humbled by the knowledge of so many of you. Your study and erudition is marvelous for a newbie, even a long standing admirer of Richard III, I knew very little.
There are two very interesting articles in the Wall Street Journal, Wednesday Edition. I love the one entitled "Shakespeare Has a (Parking) Lot to Answer For, and an Op Ed in the Review & Opinion Section. I can scan and post them if anyone is unable to find them. Let me know.



On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:02 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I am just perusing my very old copy of Antonia Fraser's "The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England" and looking at the Plantagenet Family Tree, I see that Henry III and Eleanor of Provence had a son, Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster. If as I have read scoliosis is hereditary, could that be a clue. I can only assume that the term Crouchback, would describe a crooked back. Any thoughts????

Carol responds:

I was thinking something similar the other day and Googled an image of his funeral effigy, which looks perfectly standard for the times (and probably doesn't resemble the real Edmund). The origin of his sobriquet is debated. I think the standard view is that it stands for "cross back" because as a Crusader, he would have worn a red cross on the back of his armor. However, Henry IV (the first Lancastrian king, who deposed, imprisoned, and eventually executed his childless cousin, Richard II), claimed that Edmund Crouchback, his maternal great-great-grandfather, was really the elder son but was set aside in favor of his brother, Edward I, because of his disability. Whether Edmund had a crooked back, I don't know, but he certainly wasn't the elder son. That was just a ploy, to put it politely, to strengthen Henry's claim and make it ostensibly superior to Richard's since his father, unlike Richard's, was a younger son of Edward I's grandson, Edward III (who, by the way, is the common ancestor of just about everybody of importance in the Wars of the Roses).

Anyway, I don't suppose the Windsors will let any archaeologists disinter Edmund to find the answer to the question of his possible deformity. If they did, though, he'd have the same Y chromosome as Richard III and all the Plantagenet kings (barring infidelity somewhere along the line). Also, if Edmund did have scoliosis or a similar disorder, it didn't prevent him from being a successful soldier. Rather like his distant relation, Richard III, if his skeleton is being interpreted correctly.

Carol

First post! And I actually know something!

Maude is (or at least was) the affectionate version of Matilda. Like Harry for Henry.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> >
> > carol
> >
>

In the Antonia Fraser book, (and is she actually an Historian), she says Henry I was the fourth son of William II and Matilda......so that really muddies the water. It says he was born 1068 and married an Edith (Matilda) who died in 1118, then married Adelaide of Louvain. And they had a son, Henry V, who also married a Matilda, and when he died she married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, and thank God no more Matilda's in the Norman and Angevin lineage. Was that just a great name to have, or what????

On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Vickie" <lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook@...>> wrote:



I've read it both ways, I'm not sure which is more correct
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "ellrosa1452" kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> Elaine
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> >
> > carol
> >
>
>

Rats, I had to look up my information, and from a maybe/maybe not historian!

On Feb 7, 2013, at 6:35 PM, "Ragnar" <miles.de.bohun@...<mailto:miles.de.bohun@...>> wrote:



First post! And I actually know something!

Maude is (or at least was) the affectionate version of Matilda. Like Harry for Henry.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> Elaine
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> >
> > carol
> >
>

Apologies if you have already seen this - I've lost count of what's been
put on here & what hasn't - confused......

This is the link to the Chapter statement issued today from York
Minster. The new Dean of York is the Very Rev Vivienne Faull - her
previous position was Dean of Leicester!

http://www.yorkminster.org/about-us/news/chapter-statement-regarding-rich
ard-iii.html

If the link doesnt work Google York Minster, About Us/ News

Jac

Henry I was son of William I

"Henry V" was Holy Roman Emperor, and first wife of Matilda (hence she was afterwards known as Empress Maud.)


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 0:50
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!

In the Antonia Fraser book, (and is she actually an Historian), she says Henry I was the fourth son of William II and Matilda......so that really muddies the water. It says he was born 1068 and married an Edith (Matilda) who died in 1118, then married Adelaide of Louvain. And they had a son, Henry V, who also married a Matilda, and when he died she married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, and thank God no more Matilda's in the Norman and Angevin lineage.  Was that just a great name to have, or what????

On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Vickie" <lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook@...>> wrote:



I've read it both ways, I'm not sure which is more correct
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "ellrosa1452" kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> Elaine
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> >
> > carol
> >
>
>











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Maire wrote:
>
> I have never seen Simon Farnaby until today. He called Richard "a bonnie lad," so he's won my heart forever. Maire.

Carol responds:

So you need to see him in "Horrible Histories," right? All the "Stupid Deaths" segments feature him as the Grim Reaper. I'm not sure which other characters he plays. Bear in mind that it's intended as a children's program so there's quite a bit of humor related to, er, bodily fluids and that sort of thing, but adults can appreciate it on another level, especially if they have a smattering of history and the ability to laugh.

For Simon's sake, watch this one, about James II. If you like it, there are lots more. If not, well, you did it for Simon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjsxBRFpkpY

And if you haven't already seen it, you might want to watch the Richard III song before they update it and ruin it. It doesn't have Simon in it (the actor is Jim Howick, but I think he's a Richard III fan himself). It's cute at any rate though the ending is silly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY-P6mz8SN4

Carol

Pamela

The [crouch] in 'crouchback' would seem to be related to 'crux' or 'cross'
rather than 'crooked'. I did a mini-analysis of this on a different forum
some time last year (I really should have saved a copy). Essentially,
there's no sensible way of connecting, at that time in the history of
English 'crouch' with 'crooked'. The connection with 'cross' however (as
in Crouch End in London) is well attested. Now that leads to the question
why he was called 'Crossback', but linguistic enquiry doesn't help answer
that.

Karen



On 8/02/13 6:29 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:

>I am just perusing my very old copy of Antonia Fraser's "The Lives of the
>Kings and Queens of England" and looking at the Plantagenet Family Tree,
>I see that Henry III and Eleanor of Provence had a son, Edmund
>Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster. If as I have read scoliosis is hereditary,
>could that be a clue. I can only assume that the term Crouchback, would
>describe a crooked back. Any thoughts????
>
>On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "mariewalsh2003"
><[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>From what I recall of John's chapter on Richard's mitochondrial DNA, it
>belongs to the type labelled "Jasmine" by Bryan Sykes ("The Seven
>Daughters of Eve"). Originates in Near East but started spread across
>Europe with farming and the Indo-European languages; remains a minority
>type, though, possibly more common amongst the social elite.
>Marie
>
>--- In
><mailto:%40yah
>oogroups.com>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>>
>> //snip//
>> "I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
>> mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I
>>believe, in
>> Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only
>>1-2% of
>> English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a
>>story
>> to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native
>>girl
>> back to France with him? Or perhaps it’s result of a more humdrum mass
>> migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be
>>glued to
>> the story as it unfolds."
>>
>> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the
>>first
>> Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
>> remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
>> Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thanks again for the meanings. As I said, being a novice, and sorting through family trees, it become a tad confusing, and I certainly did not take the time to put his life in the proper time of the crusades.
I did look to Antonia Fraser's credentials. Alas, another novelist and educated woman, but certainly not a scholar, as those seen in the dig. So a prior Allison Weir kind of writer??? She has led a rather colorful life, but there I go again.....that would be a tangent!

On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff@...>> wrote:



Pamela

The [crouch] in 'crouchback' would seem to be related to 'crux' or 'cross'
rather than 'crooked'. I did a mini-analysis of this on a different forum
some time last year (I really should have saved a copy). Essentially,
there's no sensible way of connecting, at that time in the history of
English 'crouch' with 'crooked'. The connection with 'cross' however (as
in Crouch End in London) is well attested. Now that leads to the question
why he was called 'Crossback', but linguistic enquiry doesn't help answer
that.

Karen

On 8/02/13 6:29 AM, "Pamela Bain" pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

>I am just perusing my very old copy of Antonia Fraser's "The Lives of the
>Kings and Queens of England" and looking at the Plantagenet Family Tree,
>I see that Henry III and Eleanor of Provence had a son, Edmund
>Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster. If as I have read scoliosis is hereditary,
>could that be a clue. I can only assume that the term Crouchback, would
>describe a crooked back. Any thoughts????
>
>On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "mariewalsh2003"
>[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>From what I recall of John's chapter on Richard's mitochondrial DNA, it
>belongs to the type labelled "Jasmine" by Bryan Sykes ("The Seven
>Daughters of Eve"). Originates in Near East but started spread across
>Europe with farming and the Indo-European languages; remains a minority
>type, though, possibly more common amongst the social elite.
>Marie
>
>--- In
><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
oogroups.com<http://oogroups.com>>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>>
>> //snip//
>> "I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
>> mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I
>>believe, in
>> Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only
>>1-2% of
>> English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a
>>story
>> to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native
>>girl
>> back to France with him? Or perhaps itýýýs result of a more humdrum mass
>> migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be
>>glued to
>> the story as it unfolds."
>>
>> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the
>>first
>> Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
>> remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
>> Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

And my typing continues to be rather atrocious!

On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:57 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:

> Thanks again for the meanings. As I said, being a novice, and sorting through family trees, it become a tad confusing, and I certainly did not take the time to put his life in the proper time of the crusades.
> I did look to Antonia Fraser's credentials. Alas, another novelist and educated woman, but certainly not a scholar, as those seen in the dig. So a prior Allison Weir kind of writer??? She has led a rather colorful life, but there I go again.....that would be a tangent!
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Karen Clark" <Ragged_staff@...<mailto:Ragged_staff@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Pamela
>
> The [crouch] in 'crouchback' would seem to be related to 'crux' or 'cross'
> rather than 'crooked'. I did a mini-analysis of this on a different forum
> some time last year (I really should have saved a copy). Essentially,
> there's no sensible way of connecting, at that time in the history of
> English 'crouch' with 'crooked'. The connection with 'cross' however (as
> in Crouch End in London) is well attested. Now that leads to the question
> why he was called 'Crossback', but linguistic enquiry doesn't help answer
> that.
>
> Karen
>
> On 8/02/13 6:29 AM, "Pamela Bain" pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:
>
>> I am just perusing my very old copy of Antonia Fraser's "The Lives of the
>> Kings and Queens of England" and looking at the Plantagenet Family Tree,
>> I see that Henry III and Eleanor of Provence had a son, Edmund
>> Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster. If as I have read scoliosis is hereditary,
>> could that be a clue. I can only assume that the term Crouchback, would
>> describe a crooked back. Any thoughts????
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 1:04 PM, "mariewalsh2003"
>> [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From what I recall of John's chapter on Richard's mitochondrial DNA, it
>> belongs to the type labelled "Jasmine" by Bryan Sykes ("The Seven
>> Daughters of Eve"). Originates in Near East but started spread across
>> Europe with farming and the Indo-European languages; remains a minority
>> type, though, possibly more common amongst the social elite.
>> Marie
>>
>> --- In
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> oogroups.com<http://oogroups.com>>, "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Johanne Tournier wrote:
>>>
>>> //snip//
>>> "I will be very interested to learn more about the DNA analysis. JAH
>>> mentioned that the Michael Ibsen mitochondrial DNA originated, I
>>> believe, in
>>> Syria. And they said somewhere that the DNA type is shared with only
>>> 1-2% of
>>> English people, so it must be quite rare there. I am sure there is a
>>> story
>>> to be told. Perhaps a Pilgrim to the Holy Land brought a lovely native
>>> girl
>>> back to France with him? Or perhaps it's result of a more humdrum mass
>>> migration at some point in the distant past. Regardless, I will be
>>> glued to
>>> the story as it unfolds."
>>>
>>> Isn't there some story about the origins of the Plantagenets? How the
>>> first
>>> Plantagenet married some "strange" woman? I can't for the life of me
>>> remember where I read it, possibly Costain's "Plantagenet" series?
>>> Anyway, perhaps that's where the Syrian mtDNA came from?
>>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

aka Maude
Paul

On 07/02/2013 23:11, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>> Vickie Cook wrote:
>>> One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
>>
>> carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Either Antonia Fraser is muddled, or you have misread what she says.

Guillaume le Batard, Duke of Normandy, better known as William the Conqueror, became King William I of England. Through his marriage to Matilda of Flanders he had four sons - Robert Curthose, who succeeded him as Duke of Normandy; Richard of Normandy, who predeceased his father; William Rufus, who succeeded his father as William II, King of England; and Henry Beauclerc, who became Henry I, King of England by succeeding his brother William II, and Duke of Normandy by defeating his brother Robert Curthose.

Henry Beauclerc married Matilda of Scotland, daughter of Margaret of Wessex and Malcolm III (Canmore) of Scotland, thus bringing the bloodline of the Wessex/England royal family into the Norman line.

Henry Beauclerc and Matilda of Scotland were the parents of Matilda, familiarly known as Maude, who first married Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, by whom she had no surviving children, and secondly married Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou.

Empress Matilda/Maude and Geoffrey of Anjou were the parents of Henry II, King of England, from whom the Plantagenet line descended unbroken until the death of Richard III at Bosworth.

Richard G

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> In the Antonia Fraser book, (and is she actually an Historian), she says Henry I was the fourth son of William II and Matilda......so that really muddies the water. It says he was born 1068 and married an Edith (Matilda) who died in 1118, then married Adelaide of Louvain. And they had a son, Henry V, who also married a Matilda, and when he died she married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, and thank God no more Matilda's in the Norman and Angevin lineage. Was that just a great name to have, or what????
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Vickie" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I've read it both ways, I'm not sure which is more correct
> Vickie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "ellrosa1452" kathryn198@... > wrote:
>
> > Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> > >
> > > carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I will recheck, but I did have the book right there when I posted. As I said, last evening, Antonia Fraser is a writer. She writes about historic figures, but is not an Historian by education or profession. I was simply making a point that it does get confusing.
But, with soaring joy, I appreciate all that is posted, all that I learn, and the many chances to do some digging and reading.

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:19 AM, "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...<mailto:RSG_Corris@...>> wrote:



Either Antonia Fraser is muddled, or you have misread what she says.

Guillaume le Batard, Duke of Normandy, better known as William the Conqueror, became King William I of England. Through his marriage to Matilda of Flanders he had four sons - Robert Curthose, who succeeded him as Duke of Normandy; Richard of Normandy, who predeceased his father; William Rufus, who succeeded his father as William II, King of England; and Henry Beauclerc, who became Henry I, King of England by succeeding his brother William II, and Duke of Normandy by defeating his brother Robert Curthose.

Henry Beauclerc married Matilda of Scotland, daughter of Margaret of Wessex and Malcolm III (Canmore) of Scotland, thus bringing the bloodline of the Wessex/England royal family into the Norman line.

Henry Beauclerc and Matilda of Scotland were the parents of Matilda, familiarly known as Maude, who first married Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, by whom she had no surviving children, and secondly married Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou.

Empress Matilda/Maude and Geoffrey of Anjou were the parents of Henry II, King of England, from whom the Plantagenet line descended unbroken until the death of Richard III at Bosworth.

Richard G

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> In the Antonia Fraser book, (and is she actually an Historian), she says Henry I was the fourth son of William II and Matilda......so that really muddies the water. It says he was born 1068 and married an Edith (Matilda) who died in 1118, then married Adelaide of Louvain. And they had a son, Henry V, who also married a Matilda, and when he died she married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, and thank God no more Matilda's in the Norman and Angevin lineage. Was that just a great name to have, or what????
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "Vickie" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I've read it both ways, I'm not sure which is more correct
> Vickie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "ellrosa1452" kathryn198@... > wrote:
>
> > Wasn't Henry I's daughter called Matilda? Re: the civil war between Stephen and Matilda
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Vickie Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One correction- Maude was the daughter of Henry I, William II was his brother.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > thanks. I knew that, actually. William Rufus was childless and succeeded by his brother, Henry. Posting in too big a hurry, I guess.
> > >
> > > carol
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

justcarol67 wrote:

//snip//
"It's been a very long time since I read Costain's "Plantagenets," but I
think you may be referring to Melusine, a legendary witch (or sater goddess)
ancestor. (The same accusation was applied to Jacquetta, Elizabeth
Woodville's mother, as evidence that she was a witch.)
At any rate, the mitochondrial DNA of the Plantagenets would be irrelevant.
We'd need to trace that of Cecily Neville by way of her maternal
grandmother, Katherine Swynford. Katherine's father, Payne de Roet, has been
identified, but I don't know who her mother was. that "strange" mtDNA would
have come through her."

That's it! Thank you.
The reasoning behind my wondering about the female "originator"
(originatrix?) of the Plantagenets was that, since HER mtDNA would be passed
on to all her descendents, male and female alike, perhaps that mtDNA would
show that, apparently sometime PRIOT to the Crusades, a male Plantagent had
either journeyed to the Mear East or married the daughter of someone who
HAD.
Oh well...
Doug

mariewalsh2003 wrote:

"From what I recall of John's chapter on Richard's mitochondrial DNA, it
belongs to the type labelled "Jasmine" by Bryan Sykes ("The Seven Daughters
of Eve"). Originates in Near East but started spread across Europe with
farming and the Indo-European languages; remains a minority type, though,
possibly more common amongst the social elite."

And, during a period when the majority of the population lived directly off
the land, that "social elite", quite possibly wouldn't change all that much
while it would most likely intermarry.
Thanks, Marie! Yet another book to add to my list!
Doug

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> justcarol67 wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "It's been a very long time since I read Costain's "Plantagenets," but I
> think you may be referring to Melusine, a legendary witch (or sater goddess)
> ancestor. (The same accusation was applied to Jacquetta, Elizabeth
> Woodville's mother, as evidence that she was a witch.)
> At any rate, the mitochondrial DNA of the Plantagenets would be irrelevant.
> We'd need to trace that of Cecily Neville by way of her maternal
> grandmother, Katherine Swynford. Katherine's father, Payne de Roet, has been
> identified, but I don't know who her mother was. that "strange" mtDNA would
> have come through her."
>
> That's it! Thank you.
> The reasoning behind my wondering about the female "originator"
> (originatrix?) of the Plantagenets was that, since HER mtDNA would be passed
> on to all her descendents, male and female alike, perhaps that mtDNA would
> show that, apparently sometime PRIOT to the Crusades, a male Plantagent had
> either journeyed to the Mear East or married the daughter of someone who
> HAD.
> Oh well...
> Doug
>


Her mtDNA would be passed on to all her children, male and female, but only passed on to the next generation by her daughters, and then only by their daughters, etc.
Marie

Lisa wrote:

"Exactly my thoughts when gracile was mentioned I instantly thought of
Orlando Bloom! OB appeared to fight excellently in Kingdom of Heaven yet is
slenderly built..."

I could be mistaken, but wouldn't the word "lithe" be the one most often
used to describe a male whose build fits the definition of "gracile"?
Doug

Marie wrote:

"Her mtDNA would be passed on to all her children, male and female, but only
passed on to the next generation by her daughters, and then only by their
daughters, etc."

So, any mtDNA from the "original" Plantagenet progenitrix (if that's even a
word!) would have had to come to Richard via his mother, Cecily and SHE
would only have that particular mtDNA IF she had a direct descent from that
Plantagent's wife via her (the wife's) direct female descent; daughter to
daughter to daughter...?
Oh. My. And what are the odds of THAT!?!
Thanks for helping me get it clear in my mind.
Doug.

Doug wrote:
> So, any mtDNA from the "original" Plantagenet progenitrix (if that's even a word!) would have had to come to Richard via his mother, Cecily and SHE would only have that particular mtDNA IF she had a direct descent from that Plantagent's wife via her (the wife's) direct female descent; daughter to daughter to daughter...?
> Oh. My. And what are the odds of THAT!?!
> Thanks for helping me get it clear in my mind.
> Doug.

Carol responds:

I think we mentioned earlier that the female line can be traced back only as far as Richard's great-great-grandmother Katherine de Roet (married name Katherine Swynford), who was John of Gaunt's mistress and later his wife. (Incidentally, her sister was married to Geoffrey Chaucer.) Katherine's daughter, Joan Beaufort, was Cecily Neville's mother. But Katherine's mother, Richard's great-great-great-grandmother, is unknown, so how the line could trace back to the hypothetical Jasmine (or to Melusine, if she really existed) is impossible to determine at this time.

By the way, mitochondrial DNA is separate from the nuclear DNA that gets jumbled up so that each person gets half of his mother's genes and half of his father's, but each child has a different mixture. The father's mitochondrial DNA, which comes from his mother, gets lost in the fertilization process, so only the mother's is passed on. You can look it up online for a clearer and more detailed explanation. This site might help:

http://www.genebase.com/learning/article/17

Carol

Carol wrote:

"I think we mentioned earlier that the female line can be traced back only
as far as "Richard's great-great-grandmother Katherine de Roet (married name
Katherine Swynford), who was John of Gaunt's mistress and later his wife.
(Incidentally, her sister was married to Geoffrey Chaucer.) Katherine's
daughter, Joan Beaufort, was Cecily Neville's mother. But Katherine's
mother, Richard's great-great-great-grandmother, is unknown, so how the line
could trace back to the hypothetical Jasmine (or to Melusine, if she really
existed) is impossible to determine at this time.
By the way, mitochondrial DNA is separate from the nuclear DNA that gets
jumbled up so that each person gets half of his mother's genes and half of
his father's, but each child has a different mixture. The father's
mitochondrial DNA, which comes from his mother, gets lost in the
fertilization process, so only the mother's is passed on. You can look it up
online for a clearer and more detailed explanation. This site might help:"
//snip//

It was what's in your last paragraph that I was mainly referring to because
Marie had mentioned in her post that there were certain "types" of mtDNA and
that Richard's was of the type that was associated with the Near East and
limited to about 4% of the population.
Since mtDNA is only passed via the female line I was wondering if there was
any way to connect that Near Eastern association of his mtDNA with the
stories that had been told about the "strange" wife of the first Plantagent
(Geoffrey's great-several times grandfather). Who, if she existed, would
have lived sometime around 800AD. The only reason I give ANY credence to
this story is that was roughly the time that trade, on a good-sized scale,
started up again between Europe and the Near East "Strange" = exotic,
foreign? Especially with a name like "Jasmine"! It would mean, of course,
trying to trace the "de Roets" to see where that led back.
Doug
(who was going to finish with a "lark" pun, but couldn't think of any!)

Doug wrote:
> It was what's in your last paragraph that I was mainly referring to because Marie had mentioned in her post that there were certain "types" of mtDNA and that Richard's was of the type that was associated with the Near East and limited to about 4% of the population.
[snip]

Carol responds:

Are you familiar with the idea of Mitochondrial Eve, the hypothetical descendant of all modern human beings whose mitochondrial DNA has been passed on (with detectable mutations) to all modern human beings?

According to the theory Marie referred to, and which the research team clearly used to identify the line that Richard belongs to, Mitochondrial Eve had various "daughters" (female descendants from many different generations) whose lines are traceable. Jasmine is one of the seven "daughters" ancestral to modern Europeans. Her people would have been the dark-haired farmers who settled along the coastlines of Europe after the last ice age ended. I've read that seventeen, not four, per cent of Europeans trace their mitochondrial ancestry to her. (BTW, mitochondrial DNA gets lost along the way just every time a mother has a son just as Y chromosomes do when a man fathers a daughter, so we all have plenty of female ancestors whose mitochondrial DNA we don't carry--that of our father's mother, for example.)

Essentially, all that having Jasmine's version of mitochondrial DNA (which, of course, is still mutating--you may have noticed that Richard's is recognizably similar but not identical to Michael Ibsen's) is that Richard's distant ancestors include the group of Middle Eastern immigrants who brought agriculture to Europe ten thousand years ago. How these immigrants interacted with the New Stone Age hunters who were already there would determine his ancestry from that point.

Katherine Swynford's father was Paen de Roet (variously spelled), a Flemish (Belgian) knight, so her mother may also have been Flemish. Alternately, she could have been English (Norman rather than Saxon ancestry) since de Roet first came to England with the court of Queen Philippa of Hainault, the bride of Edward III. If you're seriously interested, you could probably find out what percentage of the people of Belgian (or Norman) ancestry trace back to the hypothetical Jasmine. There's a book called "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Brian Sykes which explores the European "daughters" of Mitochondrial Eve and the science behind it all if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Daughters-Eve-Science-Ancestry/dp/0393323145 Whether it provides information about specific countries in relation to the "daughters," I don't know.

Carol

Hi, Carol & Doug -

There is an excellent discussion of the seven lines in J A-H's book *The
Last Days of Richard III,* in which he discusses the tracing of the
genealogies and the mitochondrial DNA (and a bit about the other types of
DNA, as I recall).



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:46 PM
To:
Subject: Re: FINALLY!!!





Doug wrote:
> It was what's in your last paragraph that I was mainly referring to
because Marie had mentioned in her post that there were certain "types" of
mtDNA and that Richard's was of the type that was associated with the Near
East and limited to about 4% of the population.
[snip]

Carol responds:

Are you familiar with the idea of Mitochondrial Eve, the hypothetical
descendant of all modern human beings whose mitochondrial DNA has been
passed on (with detectable mutations) to all modern human beings?

According to the theory Marie referred to, and which the research team
clearly used to identify the line that Richard belongs to, Mitochondrial Eve
had various "daughters" (female descendants from many different generations)
whose lines are traceable. Jasmine is one of the seven "daughters" ancestral
to modern Europeans. Her people would have been the dark-haired farmers who
settled along the coastlines of Europe after the last ice age ended. I've
read that seventeen, not four, per cent of Europeans trace their
mitochondrial ancestry to her. (BTW, mitochondrial DNA gets lost along the
way just every time a mother has a son just as Y chromosomes do when a man
fathers a daughter, so we all have plenty of female ancestors whose
mitochondrial DNA we don't carry--that of our father's mother, for example.)

Essentially, all that having Jasmine's version of mitochondrial DNA (which,
of course, is still mutating--you may have noticed that Richard's is
recognizably similar but not identical to Michael Ibsen's) is that Richard's
distant ancestors include the group of Middle Eastern immigrants who brought
agriculture to Europe ten thousand years ago. How these immigrants
interacted with the New Stone Age hunters who were already there would
determine his ancestry from that point.

Katherine Swynford's father was Paen de Roet (variously spelled), a Flemish
(Belgian) knight, so her mother may also have been Flemish. Alternately, she
could have been English (Norman rather than Saxon ancestry) since de Roet
first came to England with the court of Queen Philippa of Hainault, the
bride of Edward III. If you're seriously interested, you could probably find
out what percentage of the people of Belgian (or Norman) ancestry trace back
to the hypothetical Jasmine. There's a book called "The Seven Daughters of
Eve" by Brian Sykes which explores the European "daughters" of Mitochondrial
Eve and the science behind it all if you're interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Daughters-Eve-Science-Ancestry/dp/0393323145
Whether it provides information about specific countries in relation to the
"daughters," I don't know.

Carol