Press conference

Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.

Thanks in advance, everyone.

BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).

Carol

Carol
I did see it. I guess that's what Jo was referring to. Though like you I think she is confusing small with feminine. Like I said before a man can be small and still masculine
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:47 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>
> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>
> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>
> Carol
>
>

Carol said :


 that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).

Liz replied:  

I have to say I was stunned by that - is it normal for archaeologists to do that?  also, why was she so sniffy about Philippa wanting to drapeRichard's colours on the box? Even if it hadn't been Richard would it really have mattered? As Philippa said, they were only going to do that one time.


 

I put a post on late last night about Jo Appleby. Apparently her ex-college now boasts of her as one of its alumni because of this find but there are covert concerns about the hunchback statement ie. that it could turn into a 'wrong sort of snow' down the line(sorry!) . My kid went to the same place so has been getting emails about it all. It does not help that it is a women's college and it wouldn't surprise me if the odd one or two are not members of this Society.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 10:05
Subject: Re: Press conference


 

Carol said :

 that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).

Liz replied:  

I have to say I was stunned by that - is it normal for archaeologists to do that?  also, why was she so sniffy about Philippa wanting to drapeRichard's colours on the box? Even if it hadn't been Richard would it really have mattered? As Philippa said, they were only going to do that one time.

 

I've just finished watching the press conference and learned a few new things, notably that the Somerset heirs have submitted their Y chromosomes for future analysis (though it's too soon to vb sure if they match Richard's. Also, they did apparently consult with forensic anthropologists, but that may have been only in relation to the wounds. At any rate, if the general public had seen only the press conference rather than the documentary, I think they would take the findings more seriously and there would be no criticism of Philippa's emotional reactions (she didn't speak and had, of course, already absorbed most of the emotional impact) and no adverse reactions to Jo Appleby, who on this occasion was entirely professional. I liked Lin Foxhall, who read Rous's description of Richard with feeling and expression *the word I want escapes me at the moment), but I sensed that, unlike Jo Appleby, for whom Richard is, I think, just a skeleton to be analyzed in connection with a remote historical figure (I don't read minds; I'm just giving my impression), Lin Foxhall sees him as both a person and an important historical figure whose reputation she seems to hope will be reassessed along with his appearance. I liked her emphasis on the importance of sources like von Popellau (and Rous, when he's being objective) more seriously (presumably bearing in mind their biases, since she mentioned that Rous had dedicated his work to Henry Tudor but von Popellau "quite liked" Richard). Anyway, I "quite liked" the press conference whereas I have mixed feelings and serious concerns about the documentary. I hope we'll hear more about the Y chromosome research soon, and I hope that someone subscribes to "Antiquity" so we can see the peer-reviewed articles they're planning to publish there.

Did I forget to mention anything important? (Ishita, I think you'll find the press conference reassuring. And those of you who haven't seen it may find some of your questions answered there.) One hundred and fifty members of the press from seven countries cheered when Richard Buckley announced the results. that in itself is encouraging.

And I wonder, just for myself, whether the change I saw in the CBS reporter Mark Phillips from CBS This Morning to CBS Evening News the same night resulted from his having attended that same conference. If so, he and the other reporters got a taste of both science and history that, I hope, they'll remember for the rest of their lives. and maybe, just maybe, one or two will join the Richard III Society.

Carol

Carol, is the press conference on the LU site?
We are going to get 2ft of snow on Friday and Saturday.....Just FYI :(

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:56 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> I've just finished watching the press conference and learned a few new things, notably that the Somerset heirs have submitted their Y chromosomes for future analysis (though it's too soon to vb sure if they match Richard's. Also, they did apparently consult with forensic anthropologists, but that may have been only in relation to the wounds. At any rate, if the general public had seen only the press conference rather than the documentary, I think they would take the findings more seriously and there would be no criticism of Philippa's emotional reactions (she didn't speak and had, of course, already absorbed most of the emotional impact) and no adverse reactions to Jo Appleby, who on this occasion was entirely professional. I liked Lin Foxhall, who read Rous's description of Richard with feeling and expression *the word I want escapes me at the moment), but I sensed that, unlike Jo Appleby, for whom Richard is, I think, just a skeleton to be analyzed in connection with a remote historical figure (I don't read minds; I'm just giving my impression), Lin Foxhall sees him as both a person and an important historical figure whose reputation she seems to hope will be reassessed along with his appearance. I liked her emphasis on the importance of sources like von Popellau (and Rous, when he's being objective) more seriously (presumably bearing in mind their biases, since she mentioned that Rous had dedicated his work to Henry Tudor but von Popellau "quite liked" Richard). Anyway, I "quite liked" the press conference whereas I have mixed feelings and serious concerns about the documentary. I hope we'll hear more about the Y chromosome research soon, and I hope that someone subscribes to "Antiquity" so we can see the peer-reviewed articles they're planning to publish there.
>
> Did I forget to mention anything important? (Ishita, I think you'll find the press conference reassuring. And those of you who haven't seen it may find some of your questions answered there.) One hundred and fifty members of the press from seven countries cheered when Richard Buckley announced the results. that in itself is encouraging.
>
> And I wonder, just for myself, whether the change I saw in the CBS reporter Mark Phillips from CBS This Morning to CBS Evening News the same night resulted from his having attended that same conference. If so, he and the other reporters got a taste of both science and history that, I hope, they'll remember for the rest of their lives. and maybe, just maybe, one or two will join the Richard III Society.
>
> Carol
>
>

Can I ask a stupid question?

If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>
> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>
> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>
> Carol
>

Jo Appleby said it looked hunchbacked from the position it was squashed
in the grave which they later changed to his having had scoliosis, which
is NOT hunchback but curvature of the spine, like Michael Phelps and Mo
Farrah have. After Richard's death they added the one shoulder higher
than the other to make him look deformed in some way. Scoliosis is not a
deformity. In life unless he was naked, nobody would have noticed a
thing, though that always beggars the question from me as to how come
nobody mentions it after he is displayed naked in Leicester post Bosworth?
Paul


On 08/02/2013 11:06, hjnatdat wrote:
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>>
>> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>>
>> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yep - I was being ironic. It's just a question I hope somone will ask at the Conference on 2nd March so it can be shouted to the media that her word  is wrong, or has been wrongly interpreted.
I'd love to go as its only up the road from me but I'm working. Do you or anyone else intend to go? 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 11:38
Subject: Re: Re: Press conference


 

Jo Appleby said it looked hunchbacked from the position it was squashed
in the grave which they later changed to his having had scoliosis, which
is NOT hunchback but curvature of the spine, like Michael Phelps and Mo
Farrah have. After Richard's death they added the one shoulder higher
than the other to make him look deformed in some way. Scoliosis is not a
deformity. In life unless he was naked, nobody would have noticed a
thing, though that always beggars the question from me as to how come
nobody mentions it after he is displayed naked in Leicester post Bosworth?
Paul

On 08/02/2013 11:06, hjnatdat wrote:
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>>
>> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>>
>> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

If I'm off my crutches by then I shall be there. Maybe even if I am
still on them!
Paul

On 08/02/2013 11:47, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep - I was being ironic. It's just a question I hope somone will ask at the Conference on 2nd March so it can be shouted to the media that her word is wrong, or has been wrongly interpreted.
> I'd love to go as its only up the road from me but I'm working. Do you or anyone else intend to go?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 11:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Press conference
>
>
>
>
> Jo Appleby said it looked hunchbacked from the position it was squashed
> in the grave which they later changed to his having had scoliosis, which
> is NOT hunchback but curvature of the spine, like Michael Phelps and Mo
> Farrah have. After Richard's death they added the one shoulder higher
> than the other to make him look deformed in some way. Scoliosis is not a
> deformity. In life unless he was naked, nobody would have noticed a
> thing, though that always beggars the question from me as to how come
> nobody mentions it after he is displayed naked in Leicester post Bosworth?
> Paul
>
> On 08/02/2013 11:06, hjnatdat wrote:
>> Can I ask a stupid question?
>>
>> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>>>
>>> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Hi, Carol & Everyone -



Like you, I watched the whole press conference online last evening and was
quite impressed. Yes, I agree that all of the team were professional and
impressive, in perhaps different ways. Personality-wise and everything
considered, my faves have got to be Richard Buckley and Turi King, and I am
just sorry that Ms. (Dr.? Prof?) King seems to have been short-changed in
the time-before-the-camera department. I want to hear more from her. I was
pleased to hear that the five (I think she said it was) Somerset heirs have
submitted DNA for Y-chromosome analysis, since word was prior to this that
they were not cooperating (or at least the Duke himself?). Also, since she
made it clear that the Y-chromosome research is just starting, we won't have
those results for a while.



I was in general awed by the presentation and thrilled, of course, with the
results. I notice that Philippa was in the front row of the audience with
Michael Ibsen and noticed her commenting, looking appreciative, and
applauding, so I think she is probably much relieved at this point to be out
of the spotlight.



I am hoping that the whole project will be put before peer reviews and
opportunities given for further follow-up analysis. There are still some
gaps, I feel - Wednesday has certainly brought up a few and think those
areas of forensic analysis should be pursued. Although, yes, I did hear them
mention forensic analysis, we didn't hear very much about the details of who
did what, exactly.



I guess I enjoyed the documentary more than you did. I feel that they seem
to complement one another, and I would certainly like to have copies of all
the press conferences for my own as well as the documentary.



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: Friday, February 08, 2013 12:57 AM
To:
Subject: Press conference





I've just finished watching the press conference and learned a few new
things, notably that the Somerset heirs have submitted their Y chromosomes
for future analysis (though it's too soon to vb sure if they match
Richard's. Also, they did apparently consult with forensic anthropologists,
but that may have been only in relation to the wounds. At any rate, if the
general public had seen only the press conference rather than the
documentary, I think they would take the findings more seriously and there
would be no criticism of Philippa's emotional reactions (she didn't speak
and had, of course, already absorbed most of the emotional impact) and no
adverse reactions to Jo Appleby, who on this occasion was entirely
professional. I liked Lin Foxhall, who read Rous's description of Richard
with feeling and expression *the word I want escapes me at the moment), but
I sensed that, unlike Jo Appleby, for whom Richard is, I think, just a
skeleton to be analyzed in connection with a remote historical figure (I
don't read minds; I'm just giving my impression), Lin Foxhall sees him as
both a person and an important historical figure whose reputation she seems
to hope will be reassessed along with his appearance. I liked her emphasis
on the importance of sources like von Popellau (and Rous, when he's being
objective) more seriously (presumably bearing in mind their biases, since
she mentioned that Rous had dedicated his work to Henry Tudor but von
Popellau "quite liked" Richard). Anyway, I "quite liked" the press
conference whereas I have mixed feelings and serious concerns about the
documentary. I hope we'll hear more about the Y chromosome research soon,
and I hope that someone subscribes to "Antiquity" so we can see the
peer-reviewed articles they're planning to publish there.

Did I forget to mention anything important? (Ishita, I think you'll find the
press conference reassuring. And those of you who haven't seen it may find
some of your questions answered there.) One hundred and fifty members of the
press from seven countries cheered when Richard Buckley announced the
results. that in itself is encouraging.

And I wonder, just for myself, whether the change I saw in the CBS reporter
Mark Phillips from CBS This Morning to CBS Evening News the same night
resulted from his having attended that same conference. If so, he and the
other reporters got a taste of both science and history that, I hope,
they'll remember for the rest of their lives. and maybe, just maybe, one or
two will join the Richard III Society.

Carol

An excellent suggestion. Those of you with questions about the investigation might be well served to assess them in light of both the documentary (which, although I haven't seen it yet, sounds sensationalized) and the press conference on Monday. The entire press conference is, I believe, on the ULeic's website by now. I was terrifically impressed by the lengths to which they went to make the identification.

Yeah, they did consult an expert in medieval weaponry who wasn't featured in the press conference--a gentleman with a salt-and-pepper beard who probably features prominently in the documentary because... you know, weapons. There were probably quite a few more of them they didn't have nearly enough time to put into the doc.

It occurs to me that if the (vastly more challenging) extraction of Y-chromosome DNA from the remains succeeds, that gives us a point of reference for locating, at long last, Edward of Middleham.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> I've just finished watching the press conference and learned a few new things, notably that the Somerset heirs have submitted their Y chromosomes for future analysis (though it's too soon to vb sure if they match Richard's. Also, they did apparently consult with forensic anthropologists, but that may have been only in relation to the wounds. At any rate, if the general public had seen only the press conference rather than the documentary, I think they would take the findings more seriously and there would be no criticism of Philippa's emotional reactions (she didn't speak and had, of course, already absorbed most of the emotional impact) and no adverse reactions to Jo Appleby, who on this occasion was entirely professional. I liked Lin Foxhall, who read Rous's description of Richard with feeling and expression *the word I want escapes me at the moment), but I sensed that, unlike Jo Appleby, for whom Richard is, I think, just a skeleton to be analyzed in connection with a remote historical figure (I don't read minds; I'm just giving my impression), Lin Foxhall sees him as both a person and an important historical figure whose reputation she seems to hope will be reassessed along with his appearance. I liked her emphasis on the importance of sources like von Popellau (and Rous, when he's being objective) more seriously (presumably bearing in mind their biases, since she mentioned that Rous had dedicated his work to Henry Tudor but von Popellau "quite liked" Richard). Anyway, I "quite liked" the press conference whereas I have mixed feelings and serious concerns about the documentary. I hope we'll hear more about the Y chromosome research soon, and I hope that someone subscribes to "Antiquity" so we can see the peer-reviewed articles they're planning to publish there.
>
> Did I forget to mention anything important? (Ishita, I think you'll find the press conference reassuring. And those of you who haven't seen it may find some of your questions answered there.) One hundred and fifty members of the press from seven countries cheered when Richard Buckley announced the results. that in itself is encouraging.
>
> And I wonder, just for myself, whether the change I saw in the CBS reporter Mark Phillips from CBS This Morning to CBS Evening News the same night resulted from his having attended that same conference. If so, he and the other reporters got a taste of both science and history that, I hope, they'll remember for the rest of their lives. and maybe, just maybe, one or two will join the Richard III Society.
>
> Carol
>

That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.

There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)

The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.

It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.

Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.

In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> >
> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Carol, is the press conference on the LU site?
> We are going to get 2ft of snow on Friday and Saturday.....Just FYI :(
>
Carol responds:

Hi, Ishita. Someone else has probably answered your question by now, but, yes, it is. Here's the link:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England

Sorry about your snow. From the weather reports, it sounds like a major storm in the area that's still recovering from Hurricane Sandy. Here, we're heading into spring. I expect to see wildflowers blooming along the roadsides in a day or two. I'll send you thoughts of lupine and California poppies to cheer you.

Carol

She was charming, and so enlightening. I would love to sit and listen to more.

On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:15 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.

There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)

The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.

It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.

Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.

In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> >
> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Thank you so much. I began to think I'd got a touch of the sun (not likely at the moment!).
 
I have a lot of time for Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, I saw her in the original trial and thought she was both knowledgeable and brave. What is SO interesting is that the serious Press and journals have interpreted the findings as one should- that the guy had scoliosis, we're not quite sure to what degree. But  the popular media, for want of a better word, have immediately latched on to that word and used it to justify denegration yet again - just as the Tudors wanted.
 
That's why it would be lovely if someone could ask this question in an open forum and Jo Appleby (or someone) could have a chance of making a public explanation of what exactly they mean. A 3D  're-construction' of Richard could not go amiss - surely if you can do computer games you can construct one of him reasonably easily to get over the point? I for one can't believe that if the guy was a serious 'crookback' (sorry folks) someone wouldn't have leaked it and used it as poison in his own time - what a gift for them! 
 
Again, thanks so much  H


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 15:15
Subject: Re: Press conference

 

That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.

There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)

The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.

It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.

Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.

In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> >
> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I agree with you about Dr. Tudor-Craig! Very interesting woman, I would have loved to hear more from her.
Vickie

From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Press conference

 
That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.

There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)

The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.

It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.

Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.

In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> >
> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Yes, it's been interesting this week to watch the conversation change. For so long, the Monster Squad has controlled the public discourse about the life and reign of Richard III, but just this week, with the identification of the remains, even staunch purveyors of the demon narrative have wavered in their assertions. One historically anti-Richard scholar interviewed in the Ch4 doc went from "He was a murderin' hunchback, period end o' sentence" to "Well, no, there's not a lot of evidence that his nephews were murdered, but if I'd been in his shoes, I would have," which are two entirely different statements.

What cheers us unutterably, the thought that our maligned monarch has come home after five centuries, has probably struck fear into those whose intemperate, inflammatory statements have gained them notoriety and financial remuneration for several decades. There goes the meal ticket, but as Anne Bonny is said to have remarked to her colleague Rackham, facing execution after his capture for piracy, "I am right sorry for your fate, but if you had fought like a man you need not be hanged as a dog."

No wonder Starkey is grouchy. He reminds me of the unreconstructed racists of the 1960s, or the unrepentant homophobes of our own time, clinging to their bigotry in desperate hope that the success tap will keep flowing. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Chumps.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Thank you so much. I began to think I'd got a touch of the sun (not likely at the moment!).
>  
> I have a lot of time for Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, I saw her in the original trial and thought she was both knowledgeable and brave. What is SO interesting is that the serious Press and journals have interpreted the findings as one should- that the guy had scoliosis, we're not quite sure to what degree. But  the popular media, for want of a better word, have immediately latched on to that word and used it to justify denegration yet again - just as the Tudors wanted.
>  
> That's why it would be lovely if someone could ask this question in an open forum and Jo Appleby (or someone) could have a chance of making a public explanation of what exactly they mean. A 3D  're-construction' of Richard could not go amiss - surely if you can do computer games you can construct one of him reasonably easily to get over the point? I for one can't believe that if the guy was a serious 'crookback' (sorry folks) someone wouldn't have leaked it and used it as poison in his own time - what a gift for them! 
>  
> Again, thanks so much  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 15:15
> Subject: Re: Press conference
>
>  
>
> That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.
>
> There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)
>
> The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.
>
> It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.
>
> Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.
>
> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask a stupid question?
> >
> > If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> > >
> > > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely!
 
You know when you think it through even more, why didn't Buckingham and the Henry T camp proclaim that they were ruled by a man 'cursed by God'?  There was nothing more to put the fear of God into fifteenth century  minds than that.   Home and Dry.   Cheers H


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 15:45
Subject: Re: Press conference

 

Yes, it's been interesting this week to watch the conversation change. For so long, the Monster Squad has controlled the public discourse about the life and reign of Richard III, but just this week, with the identification of the remains, even staunch purveyors of the demon narrative have wavered in their assertions. One historically anti-Richard scholar interviewed in the Ch4 doc went from "He was a murderin' hunchback, period end o' sentence" to "Well, no, there's not a lot of evidence that his nephews were murdered, but if I'd been in his shoes, I would have," which are two entirely different statements.

What cheers us unutterably, the thought that our maligned monarch has come home after five centuries, has probably struck fear into those whose intemperate, inflammatory statements have gained them notoriety and financial remuneration for several decades. There goes the meal ticket, but as Anne Bonny is said to have remarked to her colleague Rackham, facing execution after his capture for piracy, "I am right sorry for your fate, but if you had fought like a man you need not be hanged as a dog."

No wonder Starkey is grouchy. He reminds me of the unreconstructed racists of the 1960s, or the unrepentant homophobes of our own time, clinging to their bigotry in desperate hope that the success tap will keep flowing. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Chumps.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Thank you so much. I began to think I'd got a touch of the sun (not likely at the moment!).
>  
> I have a lot of time for Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, I saw her in the original trial and thought she was both knowledgeable and brave. What is SO interesting is that the serious Press and journals have interpreted the findings as one should- that the guy had scoliosis, we're not quite sure to what degree. But  the popular media, for want of a better word, have immediately latched on to that word and used it to justify denegration yet again - just as the Tudors wanted.
>  
> That's why it would be lovely if someone could ask this question in an open forum and Jo Appleby (or someone) could have a chance of making a public explanation of what exactly they mean. A 3D  're-construction' of Richard could not go amiss - surely if you can do computer games you can construct one of him reasonably easily to get over the point? I for one can't believe that if the guy was a serious 'crookback' (sorry folks) someone wouldn't have leaked it and used it as poison in his own time - what a gift for them! 
>  
> Again, thanks so much  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 15:15
> Subject: Re: Press conference
>
>  
>
> That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.
>
> There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)
>
> The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.
>
> It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.
>
> Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.
>
> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask a stupid question?
> >
> > If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> > >
> > > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

<No wonder Starkey is grouchy. He reminds me of the unreconstructed
racists of the 1960s, or the unrepentant homophobes of our own time,
clinging to their bigotry in desperate hope that the success tap will
keep flowing.>
Well, said!!Now that I am calm and breathing normally, I can think see the humor! Here's another article on yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/did-richard-iii-really-friendly-face-155322192.html



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Press conference


 
Yes, it's been interesting this week to watch the conversation change. For so long, the Monster Squad has controlled the public discourse about the life and reign of Richard III, but just this week, with the identification of the remains, even staunch purveyors of the demon narrative have wavered in their assertions. One historically anti-Richard scholar interviewed in the Ch4 doc went from "He was a murderin' hunchback, period end o' sentence" to "Well, no, there's not a lot of evidence that his nephews were murdered, but if I'd been in his shoes, I would have," which are two entirely different statements.

What cheers us unutterably, the thought that our maligned monarch has come home after five centuries, has probably struck fear into those whose intemperate, inflammatory statements have gained them notoriety and financial remuneration for several decades. There goes the meal ticket, but as Anne Bonny is said to have remarked to her colleague Rackham, facing execution after his capture for piracy, "I am right sorry for your fate, but if you had fought like a man you need not be hanged as a dog."

No wonder Starkey is grouchy. He reminds me of the unreconstructed racists of the 1960s, or the unrepentant homophobes of our own time, clinging to their bigotry in desperate hope that the success tap will keep flowing. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Chumps.

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Thank you so much. I began to think I'd got a touch of the sun (not likely at the moment!).
>  
> I have a lot of time for Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, I saw her in the original trial and thought she was both knowledgeable and brave. What is SO interesting is that the serious Press and journals have interpreted the findings as one should- that the guy had scoliosis, we're not quite sure to what degree. But  the popular media, for want of a better word, have immediately latched on to that word and used it to justify denegration yet again - just as the Tudors wanted.
>  
> That's why it would be lovely if someone could ask this question in an open forum and Jo Appleby (or someone) could have a chance of making a public explanation of what exactly they mean. A 3D  're-construction' of Richard could not go amiss - surely if you can do computer games you can construct one of him reasonably easily to get over the point? I for one can't believe that if the guy was a serious 'crookback' (sorry folks) someone wouldn't have leaked it and used it as poison in his own time - what a gift for them! 
>  
> Again, thanks so much  H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 15:15
> Subject: Re: Press conference
>
>  
>
> That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.
>
> There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)
>
> The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.
>
> It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.
>
> Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.
>
> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask a stupid question?
> >
> > If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance, everyone.
> > >
> > > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.

Carol responds:

Pamela Tudor-Craig wrote about the doctored portraits (first discovered through X-rays) quite some time ago. I think it was the 1980s but it may have been even earlier. She makes the same arguments with the same evidence in "the Trial of Richard III," which you can see on You Tube, and I recall reading an article by her with photos when I was researching Richard in the 1980s or very early 90s.

Even without her evidence, you can see quite clearly that the farther we get from Richard's lifetime, the more distorted his features become. Just compare (as Tudor-Craig does in the documentary) the beloved National Portrait Gallery painting (which inspired Josephine Tey's novel) with the one in the Royal Collection, which has a larger nose, a meaner mouth, that clawlike thumbnail, and was later altered to make him look even more tyrannical by narrowing the eyes and raising the shoulder. Every subsequent copy of this painting (and other drawings with no historical basis whatever) show him ever uglier, older, and more deformed. It was propaganda that became "truth" and perpetuated itself.

Clearly, if we look at the National Portrait Gallery painting and the earlier (but perhaps less accurate?) Society of Antiquities painting, you can see that neither showed these distorted features (though there's a hint of unevenness in the shoulders). Clearly, based on these paintings, there was never a hump (and certainly no withered arm, which the scientists have firmly denied and disproved).

The point is, Richard did *not* have a hunchback, Jo Appleby's careless use of the word to the contrary. He had, as Rous said (but no other contemporary chronicler noticed), one shoulder higher than the other. More exaggerated the difference in the shoulders (mixing them up, perhaps to match his own) and added the withered arm. Shakespeare took it from there, making the raised shoulder a hunchback and adding a lump to the withered arm to complete his "lump of foul deformity."

As Pamela Tudor-Craig rightly said, it's easier to exaggerate than to invent a lie.

As for the crooked back revealed in the skeleton, that was almost certainly not known to the general public and would, as I think Jo's colleague suggested, have been concealed by clothing. The back may have been worse at thirty-two than it was at eighteen when Richard fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury and Barnet. It's just one more of his many misfortunes that he lived at a time when nothing could be done to help him.

Carol

Carol,
 
You need to read my posts since. I was being ironic and making the point that there ought to be a public correction of Jo's use of the word. The serious Press haven't latched onto it but the influential popular Press have.
 
That's the problem with time zones in emails I realise so sorry!   H 

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Press conference

 


Hilary wrote:
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.

Carol responds:

Pamela Tudor-Craig wrote about the doctored portraits (first discovered through X-rays) quite some time ago. I think it was the 1980s but it may have been even earlier. She makes the same arguments with the same evidence in "the Trial of Richard III," which you can see on You Tube, and I recall reading an article by her with photos when I was researching Richard in the 1980s or very early 90s.

Even without her evidence, you can see quite clearly that the farther we get from Richard's lifetime, the more distorted his features become. Just compare (as Tudor-Craig does in the documentary) the beloved National Portrait Gallery painting (which inspired Josephine Tey's novel) with the one in the Royal Collection, which has a larger nose, a meaner mouth, that clawlike thumbnail, and was later altered to make him look even more tyrannical by narrowing the eyes and raising the shoulder. Every subsequent copy of this painting (and other drawings with no historical basis whatever) show him ever uglier, older, and more deformed. It was propaganda that became "truth" and perpetuated itself.

Clearly, if we look at the National Portrait Gallery painting and the earlier (but perhaps less accurate?) Society of Antiquities painting, you can see that neither showed these distorted features (though there's a hint of unevenness in the shoulders). Clearly, based on these paintings, there was never a hump (and certainly no withered arm, which the scientists have firmly denied and disproved).

The point is, Richard did *not* have a hunchback, Jo Appleby's careless use of the word to the contrary. He had, as Rous said (but no other contemporary chronicler noticed), one shoulder higher than the other. More exaggerated the difference in the shoulders (mixing them up, perhaps to match his own) and added the withered arm. Shakespeare took it from there, making the raised shoulder a hunchback and adding a lump to the withered arm to complete his "lump of foul deformity."

As Pamela Tudor-Craig rightly said, it's easier to exaggerate than to invent a lie.

As for the crooked back revealed in the skeleton, that was almost certainly not known to the general public and would, as I think Jo's colleague suggested, have been concealed by clothing. The back may have been worse at thirty-two than it was at eighteen when Richard fought at Barnet and Tewkesbury and Barnet. It's just one more of his many misfortunes that he lived at a time when nothing could be done to help him.

Carol

That's a good article, especially for Yahoo. 


From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: Re: Press conference

 




Well, said!!Now that I am calm and breathing normally, I can think see the humor! Here's another article on yahoo.
http://news.yahoo.com/did-richard-iii-really-friendly-face-155322192.html

________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Press conference


 
Yes, it's been interesting this week to watch the conversation change. For so long, the Monster Squad has controlled the public discourse about the life and reign of Richard III, but just this week, with the identification of the remains, even staunch purveyors of the demon narrative have wavered in their assertions. One historically anti-Richard scholar interviewed in the Ch4 doc went from "He was a murderin' hunchback, period end o' sentence" to "Well, no, there's not a lot of evidence that his nephews were murdered, but if I'd been in his shoes, I would have," which are two entirely different statements.

What cheers us unutterably, the thought that our maligned monarch has come home after five centuries, has probably struck fear into those whose intemperate, inflammatory statements have gained them notoriety and financial remuneration for several decades. There goes the meal ticket, but as Anne Bonny is said to have remarked to her colleague Rackham, facing execution after his capture for piracy, "I am right sorry for your fate, but if you had fought like a man you need not be hanged as a dog."

No wonder Starkey is grouchy. He reminds me of the unreconstructed racists of the 1960s, or the unrepentant homophobes of our own time, clinging to their bigotry in desperate hope that the success tap will keep flowing. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Chumps.

---

Couldn't have put it better!
Paul

On 08/02/2013 15:45, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
> Yes, it's been interesting this week to watch the conversation change. For so long, the Monster Squad has controlled the public discourse about the life and reign of Richard III, but just this week, with the identification of the remains, even staunch purveyors of the demon narrative have wavered in their assertions. One historically anti-Richard scholar interviewed in the Ch4 doc went from "He was a murderin' hunchback, period end o' sentence" to "Well, no, there's not a lot of evidence that his nephews were murdered, but if I'd been in his shoes, I would have," which are two entirely different statements.
>
> What cheers us unutterably, the thought that our maligned monarch has come home after five centuries, has probably struck fear into those whose intemperate, inflammatory statements have gained them notoriety and financial remuneration for several decades. There goes the meal ticket, but as Anne Bonny is said to have remarked to her colleague Rackham, facing execution after his capture for piracy, "I am right sorry for your fate, but if you had fought like a man you need not be hanged as a dog."
>
> No wonder Starkey is grouchy. He reminds me of the unreconstructed racists of the 1960s, or the unrepentant homophobes of our own time, clinging to their bigotry in desperate hope that the success tap will keep flowing. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Chumps.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> Thank you so much. I began to think I'd got a touch of the sun (not likely at the moment!).
>> Â
>> I have a lot of time for Dr Pamela Tudor-Craig, I saw her in the original trial and thought she was both knowledgeable and brave. What is SO interesting is that the serious Press and journals have interpreted the findings as one should- that the guy had scoliosis, we're not quite sure to what degree. But the popular media, for want of a better word, have immediately latched on to that word and used it to justify denegration yet again - just as the Tudors wanted.
>> Â
>> That's why it would be lovely if someone could ask this question in an open forum and Jo Appleby (or someone) could have a chance of making a public explanation of what exactly they mean. A 3D  're-construction' of Richard could not go amiss - surely if you can do computer games you can construct one of him reasonably easily to get over the point? I for one can't believe that if the guy was a serious 'crookback' (sorry folks) someone wouldn't have leaked it and used it as poison in his own time - what a gift for them!Â
>> Â
>> Again, thanks so much H
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: mcjohn_wt_net
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 15:15
>> Subject: Re: Press conference
>>
>> Â
>>
>> That isn't a stupid question. It's a really good one.
>>
>> There are two things here, both of them relating to the difference between history and propaganda. One was the well-known medieval/Renaissance notion that a beautiful outside was an indication of a beautiful inside, which kind of left the ugly but personable out in the cold. (Thanks a bunch, medieval era.) Anyone with, to use a judgmental term, a deformity (two arms/legs of different lengths, cleft palate, spina bifida, clubfoot, fused fingers, conjoined twins, etc.) would have been regarded as cursed of God. (Or so the legend goes. I find it difficult to believe that any group of humans could be so entirely lacking in compassion as to decide that someone who was differently abled was a tool of Satan. Might be the same sort of thing as the Catholic church currently condemning most forms of birth control while most American Catholic women of reproductive age use it without apparent qualm.)
>>
>> The point is that calling someone deformed was the same as calling her/him wicked. The notion that Richard III was a hunchback (which we know, as of this week, not to have been true) would have been one more piece of propaganda in the demonization of the king from whom Henry VII took the throne.
>>
>> It was in Henry's interests to vilify Richard III, who had a strong claim to the throne and had conducted his affairs, both as noble and monarch, with efficiency, enlightenment, intelligence, and craft. A lot of Henry's actions after he took the throne were tailored toward this goal of presenting himself as a superior king: the marriage to Elizabeth of York (to strengthen his weak claim on the crown), the employment of historians who were encouraged to find dirt on Richard III, or, failing that, to make shit up; the execution of rival Yorkist claimants.
>>
>> Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the shoulder or add a hump.
>>
>> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length. She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>>
>> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>> Can I ask a stupid question?
>>>
>>> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>>>
>>> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>>>> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>>>>
>>>> Carol
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

To all

I have seen a press release from the Chapter of York Minster that indicates that they are not going to contest Richard remaining at Leicester.

If this has already been conveyed then please ignore this.

Regards,

Neil

Thank you Neil for the info. I am not the least surprised...as I thought this was about as likely as me winning the Lottery Eileen

--- In , Neil Trump wrote:
>
> To all
>
> I have seen a press release from the Chapter of York Minster that indicates that they are not going to contest Richard remaining at Leicester.
>
> If this has already been conveyed then please ignore this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>

Hurray!
Paul

On 08/02/2013 17:35, Neil Trump wrote:
> To all
>
> I have seen a press release from the Chapter of York Minster that indicates that they are not going to contest Richard remaining at Leicester.
>
> If this has already been conveyed then please ignore this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Wonderful.....now that King Richard has been found, it would be a shame to have a fight over where to bury him!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Statement by Chapter of York Minster



Hurray!
Paul

On 08/02/2013 17:35, Neil Trump wrote:
> To all
>
> I have seen a press release from the Chapter of York Minster that indicates that they are not going to contest Richard remaining at Leicester.
>
> If this has already been conveyed then please ignore this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Carol,
>  
> You need to read my posts since. I was being ironic and making the point that there ought to be a public correction of Jo's use of the word. The serious Press haven't latched onto it but the influential popular Press have.
>  
> That's the problem with time zones in emails I realise so sorry!   H 

Carol responds:

Yes, I discovered that you were being ironic after I sent my response. I did wonder why you'd ask that question, but irony somehow didn't occur to me. Maybe we'll have to resort to wink icons or just avoid irony altogether? But, yes, the time zone (I'm seven hours behind you) does make a difference, and so does the sheer number of posts these days. Yahoo's method of threading posts isn't much help, either. I do try to check for responses before I post, but it doesn't always work out. Oh, well. Maybe someone else benefited from what I posted?

Carol

mcjohn wrote:

//snip//
"Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and
alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life
portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never
come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as
far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only
became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been
dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in
full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more
widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the
shoulder or add a hump."

In another post (different thread, I think) Paul wondered why none of the
soldiers mentioned Richard's back. However, if the scoliosis wasn't
noticable when Richard was dressed, doesn't that mean it most likely WOULD
have been seen by those who removed his armor and clothing. That the
soldiers didn't mention it could be put down to most of them being French
and/or illiterate.
We do know that it was AFTER Bosworth that the descriptions of Richard
started to include references to his back being, well, deformed. Which is
what scoliosis is, a deformation of the spine, just not necessarily that
extreme of a deformation..
Lack of knowledge about the difference between scoliosis and kephosis and a
determination to blacken the name of the preceding monarch provided the
rest.
Or am I trying to find something where there really isn't anything? Again.
Doug

for someone to know about would require them having seen Richard naked, at
least from the waist up. Which certainly describes his condition after the
battle.
How do we know that it wasn't THEN that the "hunchback" meme started?

So, could THAT be when the "hunchback" that help to explain why there aren't
any contemporary reports of Richard's scoliosis?
>
> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of
> the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle
> propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length.
> She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard
> III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>
>> Can I ask a stupid question?
>>
>> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life,
>> why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC
>> has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures
>> (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my
>> head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's
>> assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which
>> they added was for exaggeration. H.
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>> >
>> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear
>> > up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby)
>> > and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it
>> > add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it
>> > unless it does one or the other of those things.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
>> >
>> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my
>> > earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!)
>> > Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and
>> > her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on
>> > the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see
>> > enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active
>> > despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently
>> > invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative
>> > inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in
>> > digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull
>> > caused by her trowel).
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Where the daylight has suddenly dawned today, and why oh why didn't it do so before, is that if Richard really did have a visible 'handicap' then the Church  ie Morton and cronies would have been the first to use this during the Buckingham rebellion (when Richard no longer had the protection of his brother the King) and proclaimed him cursed by God. I think McJohn has really hit on a point there.
And we need to shout it!

 

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: Re: Press conference

 


mcjohn wrote:

//snip//
"Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and
alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life
portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never
come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as
far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only
became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been
dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in
full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more
widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the
shoulder or add a hump."

In another post (different thread, I think) Paul wondered why none of the
soldiers mentioned Richard's back. However, if the scoliosis wasn't
noticable when Richard was dressed, doesn't that mean it most likely WOULD
have been seen by those who removed his armor and clothing. That the
soldiers didn't mention it could be put down to most of them being French
and/or illiterate.
We do know that it was AFTER Bosworth that the descriptions of Richard
started to include references to his back being, well, deformed. Which is
what scoliosis is, a deformation of the spine, just not necessarily that
extreme of a deformation..
Lack of knowledge about the difference between scoliosis and kephosis and a
determination to blacken the name of the preceding monarch provided the
rest.
Or am I trying to find something where there really isn't anything? Again.
Doug

for someone to know about would require them having seen Richard naked, at
least from the waist up. Which certainly describes his condition after the
battle.
How do we know that it wasn't THEN that the "hunchback" meme started?

So, could THAT be when the "hunchback" that help to explain why there aren't
any contemporary reports of Richard's scoliosis?
>
> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of
> the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle
> propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length.
> She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard
> III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>
>> Can I ask a stupid question?
>>
>> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life,
>> why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC
>> has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures
>> (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my
>> head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's
>> assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which
>> they added was for exaggeration. H.
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>> >
>> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear
>> > up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby)
>> > and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it
>> > add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it
>> > unless it does one or the other of those things.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
>> >
>> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my
>> > earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!)
>> > Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and
>> > her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on
>> > the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see
>> > enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active
>> > despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently
>> > invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative
>> > inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in
>> > digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull
>> > caused by her trowel).
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Excellent!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:11 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Where the daylight has suddenly dawned today, and why oh why didn't it do so before, is that if Richard really did have a visible 'handicap' then the Church ie Morton and cronies would have been the first to use this during the Buckingham rebellion (when Richard no longer had the protection of his brother the King) and proclaimed him cursed by God. I think McJohn has really hit on a point there.
And we need to shout it!



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate destama@...<mailto:destama%40kconline.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: Re: Press conference




mcjohn wrote:

//snip//
"Part of the propaganda campaign against Richard III was the fabrication and
alteration of portraiture of Henry's predecessor. If there was a life
portrait of Richard, either as Duke of Gloucester or as king, it has never
come to light, although that's not surprising; they hadn't even gotten as
far as painting on canvas by Richard's lifetime, and portraiture really only
became common in the 16th century. The earliest portrait that has been
dated definitively was done in 1520, when the propaganda campaign was in
full swing. As time went on, and the tale of the hunchback became more
widely known, the existing portraits were repainted to raise the line of the
shoulder or add a hump."

In another post (different thread, I think) Paul wondered why none of the
soldiers mentioned Richard's back. However, if the scoliosis wasn't
noticable when Richard was dressed, doesn't that mean it most likely WOULD
have been seen by those who removed his armor and clothing. That the
soldiers didn't mention it could be put down to most of them being French
and/or illiterate.
We do know that it was AFTER Bosworth that the descriptions of Richard
started to include references to his back being, well, deformed. Which is
what scoliosis is, a deformation of the spine, just not necessarily that
extreme of a deformation..
Lack of knowledge about the difference between scoliosis and kephosis and a
determination to blacken the name of the preceding monarch provided the
rest.
Or am I trying to find something where there really isn't anything? Again.
Doug

for someone to know about would require them having seen Richard naked, at
least from the waist up. Which certainly describes his condition after the
battle.
How do we know that it wasn't THEN that the "hunchback" meme started?

So, could THAT be when the "hunchback" that help to explain why there aren't
any contemporary reports of Richard's scoliosis?
>
> In the Channel 4 documentary, Dr. Tudor-Craig summarizes the history of
> the portraiture of Richard III, which she considers clever, subtle
> propaganda. I could have stood listening to her at far greater length.
> She made the same points in the 1984 TV special "The Trial of Richard
> III", which I believe is on YoutTube.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "hjnatdat" wrote:
>>
>> Can I ask a stupid question?
>>
>> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life,
>> why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC
>> has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures
>> (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my
>> head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's
>> assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which
>> they added was for exaggeration. H.
>>
>> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>> >
>> > Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear
>> > up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby)
>> > and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it
>> > add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it
>> > unless it does one or the other of those things.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance, everyone.
>> >
>> > BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my
>> > earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!)
>> > Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and
>> > her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on
>> > the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see
>> > enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active
>> > despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently
>> > invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative
>> > inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in
>> > digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull
>> > caused by her trowel).
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
.
.
.
> In another post (different thread, I think) Paul wondered why none of the
> soldiers mentioned Richard's back. However, if the scoliosis wasn't
> noticable when Richard was dressed, doesn't that mean it most likely WOULD
> have been seen by those who removed his armor and clothing. That the
> soldiers didn't mention it could be put down to most of them being French
> and/or illiterate.


Weds writes:

A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least three possibilities:

1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,

2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show the break; or,

3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it wasn't that severe.

~Weds

As for no. 2 they did not find any break on his spine, did they?
So we have 1 and 3. And I think it was a mixture of both.
Ishita

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 8, 2013, at 6:39 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> > In another post (different thread, I think) Paul wondered why none of the
> > soldiers mentioned Richard's back. However, if the scoliosis wasn't
> > noticable when Richard was dressed, doesn't that mean it most likely WOULD
> > have been seen by those who removed his armor and clothing. That the
> > soldiers didn't mention it could be put down to most of them being French
> > and/or illiterate.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least three possibilities:
>
> 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
>
> 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show the break; or,
>
> 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it wasn't that severe.
>
> ~Weds
>
>

I assumed the lack of comment was simply because, as much as we like to consider
ourselves much more accepting of and used to any physical disability or
abnormality than the people of past eras, the lack of treatment relative to
what's available now means the average person had a significantly greater chance
of presenting a physical abnormality at some point in their lives than a modern
Westerner does today. Scoliosis is notable now only in that we expect it to be
eliminated through treatment; in Richard's time I can't imagine an otherwise
handsome man with a twist somewhere in his spine would have seemed at all
unusual or worthy of much commentary.

I commented earlier- I'm not sure if it was seen- that I looked up the etymology
of "crouch" and it seems to have originally meant "crooked" (and was probably
pronounced similarly). Crooked-backed -> crouchbacked -> hunchbacked, in a chain
of assumptions. And even then, even if he had had an actual kyphotic hump and
not just a curve lower in his spine, I don't think that would have registered
too strongly either. It seems to me that the impression of deformity only picked
up speed when it could be safely implied, at least, to be more like a grotesque
swollen body skittering around on spindly mismatched legs, rather than just the
common condition of a bent spine.







________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, February 8, 2013 6:39:53 PM
Subject: Re: Press conference




--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
.
.
.
> In another post (different thread, I think) Paul wondered why none of the
> soldiers mentioned Richard's back. However, if the scoliosis wasn't
> noticable when Richard was dressed, doesn't that mean it most likely WOULD
> have been seen by those who removed his armor and clothing. That the
> soldiers didn't mention it could be put down to most of them being French
> and/or illiterate.

Weds writes:

A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so you can
see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't noticeable
after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least three
possibilities:


1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the
scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the
scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,


2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back would
have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show the break;
or,


3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it wasn't
that severe.


~Weds

wednesday_mc wrote:

>
"A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
three possibilities:
1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the
scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the
scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back
would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show
the break; or,
3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
wasn't that severe."

I KNEW I put it badly!
What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis
wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked
and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
"Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
(therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen) or
illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable. I
just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were removed!
Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have seen
that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER Richard's
death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while he
was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known physical
attribute in Shakespeare's play.
Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
Doug

No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers and officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the king fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of mercenaries rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the soldiers, one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.

I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King of England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile person.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> >
> "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
> you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
> noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
> three possibilities:
> 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the
> scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the
> scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
> 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back
> would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show
> the break; or,
> 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
> wasn't that severe."
>
> I KNEW I put it badly!
> What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis
> wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked
> and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
> "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
> (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen) or
> illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
> However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
> destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable. I
> just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were removed!
> Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
> would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have seen
> that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
> the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER Richard's
> death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while he
> was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known physical
> attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> Doug
>

Especially if it was Henry who made that stab in the right buttock! Steeling
himself manfully: "Take that! And that!" (There - I feel better now. He
almost gave me a fright. A bath and a change of clothes and I'll be a new
man!) "Now - cart him away!"

His portrait does very much look like a humbug. Speaking of a tendency to be
"slender, almost feminine," I'll bet he wielded a sword like a girl!
(Apologies for descending into sexism.) Weasel is an appropriate nickname.
Imho.



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 mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Press conference





No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers and
officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a
curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the king
fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even
more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of mercenaries
rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the soldiers,
one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark
that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.

I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't
find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit
fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King of
England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile person.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> >
> "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
> you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
> noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
> three possibilities:
> 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that
the
> scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if
the
> scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
> 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back

> would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show

> the break; or,
> 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
> wasn't that severe."
>
> I KNEW I put it badly!
> What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis

> wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked

> and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
> "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
> (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen)
or
> illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
> However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
> destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable.
I
> just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were
removed!
> Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
> would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have
seen
> that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
> the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER
Richard's
> death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while
he
> was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known
physical
> attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> Doug
>

Oh, no. Oh, no. I am giving Henry NO credit for being able to handle a sword like Xena does!

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Especially if it was Henry who made that stab in the right buttock! Steeling
> himself manfully: "Take that! And that!" (There - I feel better now. He
> almost gave me a fright. A bath and a change of clothes and I'll be a new
> man!) "Now - cart him away!"
>
> His portrait does very much look like a humbug. Speaking of a tendency to be
> "slender, almost feminine," I'll bet he wielded a sword like a girl!
> (Apologies for descending into sexism.) Weasel is an appropriate nickname.
> Imho.
>
>
>
> 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 mcjohn_wt_net
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:01 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Press conference
>
>
>
>
>
> No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers and
> officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a
> curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the king
> fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even
> more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of mercenaries
> rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the soldiers,
> one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark
> that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.
>
> I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't
> find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit
> fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King of
> England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile person.
>
> --- In
> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > >
> > "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
> > you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
> > noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
> > three possibilities:
> > 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that
> the
> > scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if
> the
> > scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
> > 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back
>
> > would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show
>
> > the break; or,
> > 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
> > wasn't that severe."
> >
> > I KNEW I put it badly!
> > What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis
>
> > wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked
>
> > and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
> > "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
> > (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen)
> or
> > illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
> > However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
> > destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable.
> I
> > just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were
> removed!
> > Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
> > would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have
> seen
> > that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
> > the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER
> Richard's
> > death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while
> he
> > was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known
> physical
> > attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> > Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Doug wrote:
> I KNEW I put it badly!
> What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen) or illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth. However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable. I just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were removed! Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have seen that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER Richard's death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while he was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known physical attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> Doug
>
Doug, I think I understand what you're trying to say. Nobody, not even enemies of the House of York or Richard's own personal enemies, said a word about a hunchback, a crouchback, a curved back, or even a raised shoulder while he was alive. That must mean that no defect was visible when he was dressed. Rous (who also said falsely that he was physically weak) was the first to mention the raised shoulder (amid a lot of nonsense about two years in his mother's womb), but that was after Richard was dead in a book dedicated to Henry VII. The only near-contemporary reference to a "crouchback" occurred in, of all places, York, also after he was dead. (Anyone have the dates for those references? I doubt that the disaffected Yorkshireman could have read Rous's book, which was in Latin, but word of the raised shoulder and other supposed "monstrous" attributes could have begun circulating by that time, and we know what happens to rumors once they spread.)

But, back to the soldiers. The French, who hated Richard, had already referred to him as the murderer or his nephews, but I don't recall any references to a hunchback there. Commynes never describes Richard. And Vergil, writing for Henry VII, still has only the raised shoulder. More reverses the shoulders and gives us the withered arm. That's the version repeated in Hall and Holinshed. It's not till Shakespeare that the raised shoulder becomes a hunchback. (He adds a limp for good measure.) But not till that point did the hunchback back become "common knowledge" repeated as truth in history books.

So the Stanleys, who knew very well what Richard looked like, never mentioned a crooked back even after they saw his naked corpse. Neither, as you say, did Oxford, who didn't really know Richard but must have seen him in life and certainly would have seen him naked after the battle. And Henry himself, who did everything in his power to paint Richard as an evil tyrant and usurper, did not tell his historians to depict Richard as having a crooked back.

"Everyone" did *not* "know" about the crooked back even after Richard's naked body was put on public display (which makes the lone reference in York all the more mysterious)--and makes the research team's analysis of the skeleton's curved back, and especially their careless use of the word "hunchback," all the more disturbing. We really need an expert forensic analysis of the photographs of the bones in situ and an expert reconstruction of the upright skeleton by an impartial team not involved in the dig.

Carol

No, you're right, Mcjohn! More the way the guy in *Revenge of the Nerds*
handled the javelin!



Johanne

(apologizing for lack of Christian spirit of forgiveness toward Henry)



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Press conference





Oh, no. Oh, no. I am giving Henry NO credit for being able to handle a sword
like Xena does!

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Especially if it was Henry who made that stab in the right buttock!
Steeling
> himself manfully: "Take that! And that!" (There - I feel better now. He
> almost gave me a fright. A bath and a change of clothes and I'll be a new
> man!) "Now - cart him away!"
>
> His portrait does very much look like a humbug. Speaking of a tendency to
be
> "slender, almost feminine," I'll bet he wielded a sword like a girl!
> (Apologies for descending into sexism.) Weasel is an appropriate nickname.
> Imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
mcjohn_wt_net
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:01 AM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Press conference
>
>
>
>
>
> No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers
and
> officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a
> curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the
king
> fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even
> more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of
mercenaries
> rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the
soldiers,
> one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark
> that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.
>
> I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't
> find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit
> fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King
of
> England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile
person.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > >
> > "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist
so
> > you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't

> > noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least

> > three possibilities:
> > 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that
> the
> > scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if
> the
> > scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
> > 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his
back
>
> > would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will
show
>
> > the break; or,
> > 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it

> > wasn't that severe."
> >
> > I KNEW I put it badly!
> > What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the
scoliosis
>
> > wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was
naked
>
> > and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
> > "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
> > (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen)
> or
> > illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
> > However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
> > destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite
valuable.
> I
> > just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were
> removed!
> > Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries),
there
> > would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have
> seen
> > that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others.
Over
> > the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER
> Richard's
> > death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard
while
> he
> > was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known
> physical
> > attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> > Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I very strongly agree. If this was an unknown body unearthed, a crime forensics team would have investigated for a coroners report (if the law there is the same as here). THAT's the kind of investigation I would like to see.

And (if at all possible) by experts unaware of the source of the remains they are examining (which could only happen by different experts being given parts rather than the whole I guess).

I know people have been very supportive of the UOL team, but I have to admit that, having seen the documentary and the press conference, I am still less than impressed with their initial approach and their basking in the limelight congratulating each other to the press. ( Not the post-find experts on the Geneology, genetics and contemporary texts who seemed to have done good work).

And their website which claims how their great team used their skills to discover Richard, when in reality Philippa told them exactly where to look. When they started there and quickly found human remains, they just left them while digging other trenches. I got the impression they thought Philippa was 'odd' and were using the funded opportunity to do a more normal archaeological dig. When forced by their finding to go back to the skeleton, Appleby's approach was quite disturbing to me, having watched real archaeologists at work.

To my mind, thanks entirely to Philippa and almost despite themselves really, they have been catapulted into the limelight and the Uni's claims of their 'experts' caused my wife to laugh mockingly - and she has no real interest in this at all - apart of course supporting my interest

Her comment was - "The purpose of the dig - funded by donations through the society - could have achieved it's objective in a few hours instead of digging all those other trenches. They got fame handed to them on a plate by Philippa and the Society". I would call that a fair comment.

I am still totally unconvinced the scoliosis was anything like as extensive as portrayed and the shoulder bone could well have been due to many years of weapon practise, an expert needs to determine that . I am still thinking of a slightly 'raised' shoulder as being well-developed muscle and the bone structure reflecting that. Of course I might well be wrong but it needs to be examined by the same sort of expert that would prepare a legal report for a Coroner to convince me otherwise

I would be happy to donate if needed for such an investigation. Richard had a hard life and death, disgusting treatment of his body and the Tudor propaganda turning him into some sort of monster .
This is already way too much, he deserves better from us now , not another travesty.
=========================================
Snipped
=========================================


"Everyone" did *not* "know" about the crooked back even after Richard's naked body was put on public display (which makes the lone reference in York all the more mysterious)--and makes the research team's analysis of the skeleton's curved back, and especially their careless use of the word "hunchback," all the more disturbing. We really need an expert forensic analysis of the photographs of the bones in situ and an expert reconstruction of the upright skeleton by an impartial team not involved in the dig.

Carol

Damn right......

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 9:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Press conference



Oh, no. Oh, no. I am giving Henry NO credit for being able to handle a sword like Xena does!

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Especially if it was Henry who made that stab in the right buttock! Steeling
> himself manfully: "Take that! And that!" (There - I feel better now. He
> almost gave me a fright. A bath and a change of clothes and I'll be a new
> man!) "Now - cart him away!"
>
> His portrait does very much look like a humbug. Speaking of a tendency to be
> "slender, almost feminine," I'll bet he wielded a sword like a girl!
> (Apologies for descending into sexism.) Weasel is an appropriate nickname.
> Imho.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mcjohn_wt_net
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:01 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Press conference
>
>
>
>
>
> No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers and
> officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a
> curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the king
> fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even
> more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of mercenaries
> rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the soldiers,
> one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark
> that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.
>
> I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't
> find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit
> fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King of
> England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile person.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > >
> > "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
> > you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
> > noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
> > three possibilities:
> > 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that
> the
> > scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if
> the
> > scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
> > 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back
>
> > would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show
>
> > the break; or,
> > 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
> > wasn't that severe."
> >
> > I KNEW I put it badly!
> > What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis
>
> > wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked
>
> > and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
> > "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
> > (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen)
> or
> > illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
> > However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
> > destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable.
> I
> > just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were
> removed!
> > Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
> > would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have
> seen
> > that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
> > the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER
> Richard's
> > death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while
> he
> > was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known
> physical
> > attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> > Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> > Doug
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I seem to remember H8 wasn't much better in the vile character department? Wasn't there something about Anne Boleyn's burial...that he deliberately had her buried in unconsecrated ground...something akin to denying her a final judgment and implying he'd already judged her so God didn't need to? Or am I misremembering.

~Weds

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers and officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the king fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of mercenaries rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the soldiers, one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.
>
> I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King of England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile person.
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
> >
> >
> > wednesday_mc wrote:
> >
> > >
> > "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
> > you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
> > noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
> > three possibilities:
> > 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the
> > scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the
> > scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
> > 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back
> > would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show
> > the break; or,
> > 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
> > wasn't that severe."
> >
> > I KNEW I put it badly!
> > What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis
> > wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked
> > and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
> > "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
> > (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen) or
> > illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
> > However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
> > destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable. I
> > just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were removed!
> > Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
> > would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have seen
> > that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
> > the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER Richard's
> > death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while he
> > was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known physical
> > attribute in Shakespeare's play.
> > Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
> > Doug
> >
>

She is buried in the church next to the Green she was beheaded on. So
you are not remembering correctly.
However my disgust at the lengths Henry went to to see her dead will
never diminish. Totally innocent woman he just got bored with. And of
course her not giving him a son had nothing to do with him, did it?
Paul

On 09/02/2013 19:51, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I seem to remember H8 wasn't much better in the vile character department? Wasn't there something about Anne Boleyn's burial...that he deliberately had her buried in unconsecrated ground...something akin to denying her a final judgment and implying he'd already judged her so God didn't need to? Or am I misremembering.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>> No, I think you may be on to something here. Let's say that the soldiers and officers, studying the body face-down on the horse, are able to detect a curvature of the spine. This immediately impresses the soldiers, as the king fought bravely with an obvious impediment. That, in turn, makes them even more contemptuous of Henry, who fled to the midst of a group of mercenaries rather than facing Richard openly. To counter the derision of the soldiers, one of the officers, or even Henry himself, makes some belittling remark that is then amplified into the infliction of humiliation wounds.
>>
>> I've thought and thought about the humiliation injuries and I just can't find any explanation other than that that's where the propaganda war hit fifth gear. That Henry felt it necessary to desecrate the body of a King of England says a lot about his character, all of it nasty. What a vile person.
>>
>> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" wrote:
>>>
>>> wednesday_mc wrote:
>>>
>>> "A standard test for scoliosis is to have the person bend at the waist so
>>> you can see the alignment of the spine. So if Richard's scoliosis wasn't
>>> noticeable after his armor and clothing were removed, there are at least
>>> three possibilities:
>>> 1. His body was so covered in mud (from the bog) or dirt in general that the
>>> scoliosis wasn't visible through it, either on his back or his chest (if the
>>> scoliosis gave him a sunken chest); or,
>>> 2. He was slung over the horse face up. If this is the case, then his back
>>> would have had to be broken to keep him there, and the vertebrae will show
>>> the break; or,
>>> 3. The curvature wasn't that noticeable when he was undressed because it
>>> wasn't that severe."
>>>
>>> I KNEW I put it badly!
>>> What I was trying to say was that Richard had scoliosis, but the scoliosis
>>> wasn't so severe so that it only would have been noticed when he was naked
>>> and that the reason it took some time for the story about Richard
>>> "Crouchback" to get started was because the soldiers were either French
>>> (therefore anything they said would be dismissed by all good Englishmen) or
>>> illiterate and the story would only spread slowly by mouth.
>>> However, Richard's armor, any jewelry, even any clothing that wasn't
>>> destroyed, would all have been of the highest quality and quite valuable. I
>>> just cannot imagine Tudor NOT being there when all those items were removed!
>>> Nor would he have been all by himself (except for the mercenaries), there
>>> would have been Oxford, Stanley and undoubtedly others. THEY could have seen
>>> that Richard's back was misformed and later passed that onto others. Over
>>> the course of a decade or so, what had only been discovered AFTER Richard's
>>> death, became something that "everyone" not only knew about Richard while he
>>> was still alive, but became further exaggerated into the best-known physical
>>> attribute in Shakespeare's play.
>>> Does this make sense? Or have I just made it worse?
>>> Doug
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:

<snipped all but what I'm commenting on>

>It's not till Shakespeare that the raised shoulder becomes a hunchback. (He adds a limp for good measure.) But not till that point did the hunchback back become "common knowledge" repeated as truth in history books.

It may be that Shakespeare made his character a hunchback because a drastic curvature would be visible to his audience, whereas a raised shoulder was far too subtle to make the desired impression onstage. The same with adding the limp.

So what was theatrical necessity evolved into myth and legend. Parallel to this, if Richard had been an angel, wouldn't he have been assigned wings and a halo a la St. Michael?

I'm reminded that Shakespeare wrote for audiences naive enough that they thought Doctor Faustus actually summoned a demon onstage in the play of the same name, so the depiction of Evil!Richard would have been just as real to them, regardless the presentation was just as fictional as Mephistopheles.

> We really need an expert forensic analysis of the photographs of the bones in situ and an expert reconstruction of the upright skeleton by an impartial team not involved in the dig.

Yes, please. And a computer modeling of his spine done by the same forensic team qualified to do so.

~Weds

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Especially if it was Henry who made that stab in the right buttock! Steeling himself manfully: "Take that! And that!" (There - I feel better now. He almost gave me a fright. A bath and a change of clothes and I'll be a new man!) "Now - cart him away!"

[snip]

Carol responds:

Johanne, or anyone else who would love to mess up Henry's face (worse, I mean, than it already is with its sly, leering expression) you can virtually punch, stab, or distort his face with your mouse by going here: http://www.r3.org/alexwarp/henry7.html

Unfortunately, nothing can undo the harm he did to Richard or the humiliation he inflicted on his own king's body, but doing to Henry's face what he did to Richard's reputation may help to vent some frustration.

Great scenario, Johanne.

BTW, Marie, what's the source for that letter you mentioned from the French soldier depicting the Tydder using his own men as a shield?

Carol

Great! Hope you're off them by then, they're no fun are they?



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 12:54
Subject: Re: Re: Press conference


 

If I'm off my crutches by then I shall be there. Maybe even if I am
still on them!
Paul

On 08/02/2013 11:47, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep - I was being ironic. It's just a question I hope somone will ask at the Conference on 2nd March so it can be shouted to the media that her word is wrong, or has been wrongly interpreted.
> I'd love to go as its only up the road from me but I'm working. Do you or anyone else intend to go?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, 8 February 2013, 11:38
> Subject: Re: Re: Press conference
>
>
>
>
> Jo Appleby said it looked hunchbacked from the position it was squashed
> in the grave which they later changed to his having had scoliosis, which
> is NOT hunchback but curvature of the spine, like Michael Phelps and Mo
> Farrah have. After Richard's death they added the one shoulder higher
> than the other to make him look deformed in some way. Scoliosis is not a
> deformity. In life unless he was naked, nobody would have noticed a
> thing, though that always beggars the question from me as to how come
> nobody mentions it after he is displayed naked in Leicester post Bosworth?
> Paul
>
> On 08/02/2013 11:06, hjnatdat wrote:
>> Can I ask a stupid question?
>>
>> If Richard had a hunchback as Jo Appleby said and was painted from life, why were his pictures doctored later to add the hump (or that is what PTC has always claimed)? We know monarchs tended to like flattering pictures (didn't work well with H7 did it?) but I'm now having a job to get my head round this. Was it for exaggeraton, which could mean that Jo's assumption is also an exaggeration? We now know the withered arm which they added was for exaggeration. H.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>> Is the press conference worth watching? By which I mean, does it clear up any of the confusion caused by the documentary (chiefly Jo Appleby) and reiterate the distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis? Does it add anything new? I really don't want to take time out to watch it unless it does one or the other of those things.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, everyone.
>>>
>>> BTW, Vickie, did you catch my references to Rous and von Popelau in my earlier post (24480)? I think that's where Jo (I keep typing "Ho"!) Appleby got her mistaken impression of Richard as "feminine." That and her thought that he might be female despite a masculine skull based on the delicate bones. Earlier, Lin Foxhall (of whom we didn't get to see enough) said that the "individual" was "obviously strong and active despite his disability," yet that "obvious" strength was apparently invisible to Jo Appleby, which, to me, suggests her comparative inexperience in analyzing findings, however skilled she may be in digging them up (if we don't count an additional hole in the skull caused by her trowel).
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!