Richards image...

Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its about time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the last days reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration&etc. With all of the extensive documented historical fact proving the good character of Richard discussed on this Forum, just for our own enjoyment&.we NEED to assemble it all carefully in a concise form for the common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to learn. Lets ask the Society or any sponsor really, to assist the very knowledgeable ones among us, to do so. All the numerous subjects discussed about Richards activities and the people around him in such exquisite detail, will serve to educate his new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together, and get going with this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster subjects such as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true popularity with the people, Richards kind character&.and So many others. Then contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several members of this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert&.and should be involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my focus&.clear documentation, then presentation&education of the eager&.Carol D.

...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those of
you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I mean,
I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or on the
program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I have no
idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an expert
ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
be very useful.



________________________________
From: Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...>
To:
Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:50:33 AM
Subject: Richards image...

Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its about
time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the last days
reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration&etc. With all of the
extensive documented historical fact proving the good character of Richard
discussed on this Forum, just for our own enjoyment&.we NEED to assemble it all
carefully in a concise form for the common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to
learn. Lets ask the Society or any sponsor really, to assist the very
knowledgeable ones among us, to do so. All the numerous subjects discussed
about Richards activities and the people around him in such exquisite detail,
will serve to educate his new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together,
and get going with this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster
subjects such as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
popularity with the people, Richards kind character&.and So many others. Then
contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several members of
this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert&.and should be
involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my focus&.clear
documentation, then presentation&education of the eager&.Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't
bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the
Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
and unfavourable. Just as I'd hesitate to recommend a newcomer to Richard
only read Kendall, I'd worry at a source book that left out material that
was seen as 'unfriendly'. The suspicion of cherrypicking is never far from
Ricardian sources (justified or not) and the best way to deal with it
would be to include everything. The various sources could be honestly
assessed as to their general trustworthiness (though even that's
subjective). This would allow readers to fairly assess and interpret the
evidence of Richard's life and reign without being led (too strongly) in
one particular direction. Like Carol, I spent years teaching tertiary
students (not in history) and found it was always best to present the
various competing theories evenly before I identified which one I
favoured. Sections on the sources themselves, organised however works
best, followed by a thorough analysis might be the way to go; it's in the
analysis that the arguments in favour of Richard might be presented, but
even here I think it would be important to present and examine the
arguments 'against' as well. (I'm a huge fan of balance!)

Karen



On 9/02/13 5:50 PM, "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:

>Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its
>about time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the
>last days reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecrationŠetc.
>With all of the extensive documented historical fact proving the good
>character of Richard discussed on this Forum, just for our own
>enjoymentŠ.we NEED to assemble it all carefully in a concise form for the
>common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to learn. Lets ask the Society
>or any sponsor really, to assist the very knowledgeable ones among us, to
>do so. All the numerous subjects discussed about Richards activities and
>the people around him in such exquisite detail, will serve to educate his
>new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together, and get going with
>this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster subjects such
>as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
>popularity with the people, Richards kind characterŠ.and So many others.
>Then contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several
>members of this chat group and we know who they are, are very expertŠ.and
>should be involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my
>focusŠ.clear documentation, then presentationŠeducation of the
>eagerŠ.Carol D.

Though on reflection, I really don't feel ethically comfortable with that. Plus
I really like the kids and wouldn't want to lose my job over pushing a
historical agenda.




________________________________
From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
To:
Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:59:01 AM
Subject: Re: Richards image...


...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those of

you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I mean,
I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or on the

program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I have no
idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an expert
ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
be very useful.

________________________________
From: Carol Darling cdarlingart1@...>
To:
Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:50:33 AM
Subject: Richards image...

Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its about
time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the last days
reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration&etc. With all of the
extensive documented historical fact proving the good character of Richard
discussed on this Forum, just for our own enjoyment&.we NEED to assemble it all

carefully in a concise form for the common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to
learn. Lets ask the Society or any sponsor really, to assist the very
knowledgeable ones among us, to do so. All the numerous subjects discussed
about Richards activities and the people around him in such exquisite detail,
will serve to educate his new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together,

and get going with this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster
subjects such as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
popularity with the people, Richards kind character&.and So many others. Then
contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several members of
this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert&.and should be
involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my focus&.clear
documentation, then presentation&education of the eager&.Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think what you guys may be talking about is not a book, but a Web-based archive of documentation, including original letters and laws, commentary, forum discussions, and scholarly articles. It's possible to put one together for much less than a book would cost.

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't
> bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the
> Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. Just as I'd hesitate to recommend a newcomer to Richard
> only read Kendall, I'd worry at a source book that left out material that
> was seen as 'unfriendly'. The suspicion of cherrypicking is never far from
> Ricardian sources (justified or not) and the best way to deal with it
> would be to include everything. The various sources could be honestly
> assessed as to their general trustworthiness (though even that's
> subjective). This would allow readers to fairly assess and interpret the
> evidence of Richard's life and reign without being led (too strongly) in
> one particular direction. Like Carol, I spent years teaching tertiary
> students (not in history) and found it was always best to present the
> various competing theories evenly before I identified which one I
> favoured. Sections on the sources themselves, organised however works
> best, followed by a thorough analysis might be the way to go; it's in the
> analysis that the arguments in favour of Richard might be presented, but
> even here I think it would be important to present and examine the
> arguments 'against' as well. (I'm a huge fan of balance!)
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> On 9/02/13 5:50 PM, "Carol Darling" wrote:
>
> >Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its
> >about time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the
> >last days reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecrationŠetc.
> >With all of the extensive documented historical fact proving the good
> >character of Richard discussed on this Forum, just for our own
> >enjoymentŠ.we NEED to assemble it all carefully in a concise form for the
> >common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to learn. Lets ask the Society
> >or any sponsor really, to assist the very knowledgeable ones among us, to
> >do so. All the numerous subjects discussed about Richards activities and
> >the people around him in such exquisite detail, will serve to educate his
> >new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together, and get going with
> >this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster subjects such
> >as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
> >popularity with the people, Richards kind characterŠ.and So many others.
> >Then contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several
> >members of this chat group and we know who they are, are very expertŠ.and
> >should be involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my
> >focusŠ.clear documentation, then presentationŠeducation of the
> >eagerŠ.Carol D.
>

I don't think you'd be the only person to bring it up; there's already been a lot of criticism over Mark Phillips' (I think that's his name) first report on the announcement, which was alternatively light-hearted and completely supportive of the murderin' hunchback image. As I recall, he was much more respectful and well-informed after the presser, which he attended. IOW, by the time you could say something to the producer, he's probably just as well informed about the issues as you are.

Might be interesting, though, to mention to him that you've been on the board since the announcement and the discussion is lively.

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Though on reflection, I really don't feel ethically comfortable with that. Plus
> I really like the kids and wouldn't want to lose my job over pushing a
> historical agenda.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Megan Lerseth
> To:
> Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:59:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
> ...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those of
>
> you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I mean,
> I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or on the
>
> program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I have no
> idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an expert
> ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
> resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
> be very useful.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Carol Darling cdarlingart1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:50:33 AM
> Subject: Richards image...
>
> Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its about
> time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the last days
> reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration…etc. With all of the
> extensive documented historical fact proving the good character of Richard
> discussed on this Forum, just for our own enjoyment….we NEED to assemble it all
>
> carefully in a concise form for the common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to
> learn. Lets ask the Society or any sponsor really, to assist the very
> knowledgeable ones among us, to do so. All the numerous subjects discussed
> about Richards activities and the people around him in such exquisite detail,
> will serve to educate his new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together,
>
> and get going with this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster
> subjects such as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
> popularity with the people, Richards kind character….and So many others. Then
> contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several members of
> this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert….and should be
> involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my focus….clear
> documentation, then presentation…education of the eager….Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, sounds good McJ - if it were printed in paper-book form, I think it would need a reputable 'name' to act as editor and provide some sort of commentary on the documentation selected.....Annette anyone?

 mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:



 
I think what you guys may be talking about is not a book, but a Web-based archive of documentation, including original letters and laws, commentary, forum discussions, and scholarly articles. It's possible to put one together for much less than a book would cost.

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't
> bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the
> Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. Just as I'd hesitate to recommend a newcomer to Richard
> only read Kendall, I'd worry at a source book that left out material that
> was seen as 'unfriendly'. The suspicion of cherrypicking is never far from
> Ricardian sources (justified or not) and the best way to deal with it
> would be to include everything. The various sources could be honestly
> assessed as to their general trustworthiness (though even that's
> subjective). This would allow readers to fairly assess and interpret the
> evidence of Richard's life and reign without being led (too strongly) in
> one particular direction. Like Carol, I spent years teaching tertiary
> students (not in history) and found it was always best to present the
> various competing theories evenly before I identified which one I
> favoured. Sections on the sources themselves, organised however works
> best, followed by a thorough analysis might be the way to go; it's in the
> analysis that the arguments in favour of Richard might be presented, but
> even here I think it would be important to present and examine the
> arguments 'against' as well. (I'm a huge fan of balance!)
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> On 9/02/13 5:50 PM, "Carol Darling" wrote:
>
> >Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its
> >about time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the
> >last days reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration`etc.
> >With all of the extensive documented historical fact proving the good
> >character of Richard discussed on this Forum, just for our own
> >enjoyment`.we NEED to assemble it all carefully in a concise form for the
> >common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to learn. Lets ask the Society
> >or any sponsor really, to assist the very knowledgeable ones among us, to
> >do so. All the numerous subjects discussed about Richards activities and
> >the people around him in such exquisite detail, will serve to educate his
> >new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together, and get going with
> >this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster subjects such
> >as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
> >popularity with the people, Richards kind character`.and So many others.
> >Then contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several
> >members of this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert`.and
> >should be involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my
> >focus`.clear documentation, then presentation`education of the
> >eager`.Carol D.
>

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> ...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those of you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I mean, I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or on the program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I have no idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an expert
> ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could be very useful.
>
Carol responds:

I've started watching ABC's "Good Morning America" (or NBC's "Today") rather than "CBS This Morning" because CBS's Mark Phillips bungled the Richard III story so badly, not once but twice (when the skeleton was first announced and when it was identified) by conflating the historical Richard with Shakespeare's version. He redeemed himself partially by a much less biased report on the CBS Evening News February 4. I can only guess that he attended and was enlightened by the press conference.

I didn't watch ABC's coverage of the Richard III announcements so I don't know their take on it, but surely some representative of the station was there among the 150 reporters from various countries. If your executive producer is somehow unaware that Richard is the biggest thing to hit the news since William and Kate's wedding (bigger, actually, since it relates to science and history and, with the facial reconstruction, appeals to that crucial demographic of female viewers in their teens and twenties), you can show him the Newsweek stories, the National Geographic story, the Tumblr stuff you quoted--he's got to be living under a rock if he doesn't know how big this is.

*And* he should know who Philippa Langley is. Almost as many people have heard of her now as have heard of Richard. This is his big chance to get the scoop and do a serious segment on her and the Richard III Society. (It's too bad that Annette Carson backed out of the project; she would have been a more serious and intellectual representative, but at this point she's a relative unknown and probably wouldn't consent to an interview. But Philippa might.

As for how you would bring it up, how about "Are you planning to do any more coverage of Richard III? I think he's fascinating and so do an amazing number of people. You should do a segment on the Richard III Society. I'll bet Philippa Langley would do an interview."

One caveat, though. She's aware that CBS took her words out of context and made her description of Shakespeare's Richard appear to be a description of the historical king. She would want to make certain that a rival American TV network didn't play the same trick.

Go for it. Please go for it.

Carol

Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable. {Snip]

Carol responds:

While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument, what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross, Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in him.

But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.

By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available through Google Books as a free e-book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ

Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best cause to be true."

If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written about him.

BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?

Carol

Carol earlier:

> BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
>
Carol again:

Oops. Sorry, Karen. I just realized that you haven't read it yet. Can anyone else answer my questions?

Carol

WOW, absolutely, and certainly worth the try!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Megan Lerseth
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 12:59 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...



...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those of
you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I mean,
I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or on the
program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I have no
idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an expert
ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
be very useful.

________________________________
From: Carol Darling cdarlingart1@...<mailto:cdarlingart1%40mac.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:50:33 AM
Subject: Richards image...

Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its about
time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the last days
reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration...etc. With all of the
extensive documented historical fact proving the good character of Richard
discussed on this Forum, just for our own enjoyment....we NEED to assemble it all
carefully in a concise form for the common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to
learn. Lets ask the Society or any sponsor really, to assist the very
knowledgeable ones among us, to do so. All the numerous subjects discussed
about Richards activities and the people around him in such exquisite detail,
will serve to educate his new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together,
and get going with this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster
subjects such as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
popularity with the people, Richards kind character....and So many others. Then
contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several members of
this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert....and should be
involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my focus....clear
documentation, then presentation...education of the eager....Carol D.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Carol

Going by the others of his that I have, the sources are in translation.

Karen

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:51:58 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richards image...






Carol earlier:

> BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book,"
which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the
commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are
they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
>
Carol again:

Oops. Sorry, Karen. I just realized that you haven't read it yet. Can anyone
else answer my questions?

Carol

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Though on reflection, I really don't feel ethically comfortable with that. Plus I really like the kids and wouldn't want to lose my job over pushing a historical agenda.
>
Carol responds:

Just asking him if he'd be willing to do an objective interview wouldn't be pushing a historical agenda. It would, however, boost his ratings if he advertised it in advance and did it well. But it would have to be fair, and if he interviewed Philippa, as I suggested earlier, she would, I think, insist on seeing the segment before it aired after what happened with "CBS This Morning."

Just test the waters and ask what he thinks about the recent interest in Richard III. If he comes across thinking we're a bunch of fanatics and that Richard really was a hunchbacked usurper, drop the topic like a hot potato. But if he sees that intelligent young people like you (or, as he would probably put it, in your demographic) are genuinely interested in Richard, you can safely pursue the topic. He might thank you for the brilliant idea.

BTW, we've progressed from being emotional "women of a certain age" in love with a dead king. We're now just fanatics (age and sex not specified) trying to persuade the world that Richard wasn't what Shakespeare said he was despite Polydore Vergil (who never saw Richard) having gotten the physical description right (“He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother”. No apparent realization on the part of the writer that "deformyd of body" refers to the shoulder and nothing else.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/05/we-told-you-so-richard-iii-society-celebrates-their-hero-s-rediscovery.html

Carol

Carol said:

"But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no
favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If
we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters
(and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?),
his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we
could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real
Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what
he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering
the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers."

I would have thought any good source book (or web archive) would include all
of this. The Gairdner is bookmarked. Once I got my head around google books,
I've found so many primary documents. There are great archives on the
internet and pulling one together, specifically to do with Richard, is a
great idea.

My own personal 'Richard' journey has taken me from uncritical acceptance of
the whole revisionist story to the point I'm at now, where I'm personally
ready to find the balance. I'm not there yet, which is why I question a lot
of things, but I will get there.

Karen


From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:49:18 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richards image...






Karen Clark wrote:
>
> I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't
bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society
could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for
something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable.
{Snip]

Carol responds:

While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
"hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
him.

But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no
favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If
we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters
(and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?),
his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we
could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real
Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what
he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering
the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.

By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that
he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard
III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
through Google Books as a free e-book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ

Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in
favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard
was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we
need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the
words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And
now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can
reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
cause to be true."

If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy
or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
about him.

BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book,"
which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that
the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and
are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?

Carol

I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable. {Snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument, what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross, Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in him.
>
> But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
>
> By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available through Google Books as a free e-book:
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
>
> Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best cause to be true."
>
> If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written about him.
>
> BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
>
> Carol
>

Maire said: I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field"
by P.W. Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
it's chock full of interesting details. Maire. "


That one's definitely on my list, along with the Coronation. If I have
anything left in my budget.

Karen

Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able to afford unless I win the lottery..
Eileen
--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable. {Snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument, what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross, Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in him.
> >
> > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> >
> > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> >
> > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best cause to be true."
> >
> > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written about him.
> >
> > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Please please pretty please! Try!!!

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

On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> WOW, absolutely, and certainly worth the try!
>
> ________________________________
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Megan Lerseth
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 12:59 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
> ...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those of
> you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I mean,
> I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or on the
> program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I have no
> idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an expert
> ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
> resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
> be very useful.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Carol Darling cdarlingart1@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 1:50:33 AM
> Subject: Richards image...
>
> Re Richards image: Bravo !!! At last someone else said it and its about
> time. Doing this will help heal all the pain we have felt in the last days
> reviewing details about battle wounds, dying, desecration...etc. With all of the
> extensive documented historical fact proving the good character of Richard
> discussed on this Forum, just for our own enjoyment....we NEED to assemble it all
> carefully in a concise form for the common man, who is NOW eagerly awaiting to
> learn. Lets ask the Society or any sponsor really, to assist the very
> knowledgeable ones among us, to do so. All the numerous subjects discussed
> about Richards activities and the people around him in such exquisite detail,
> will serve to educate his new admirers so well. Can we pull ourselves together,
> and get going with this? I suggested long ago we determine the blockbuster
> subjects such as: Hastings execution, survival of the Princes, Richards true
> popularity with the people, Richards kind character....and So many others. Then
> contribute all the detail we have enjoyed on this Forum. Several members of
> this chat group and we know who they are, are very expert....and should be
> involved. How do we start. Im just a teacher, but this is my focus....clear
> documentation, then presentation...education of the eager....Carol D.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Eileen. It's a very interesting book and I picked it up on Amazon for a song. It's not written for the general public, unfortunately, and sometimes you cannot tell where the documents originated or where they are going! The notes from the authors are very insightful. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able to afford unless I win the lottery..
> Eileen
> --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument, what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross, Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in him.
> > >
> > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > >
> > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > > http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > >
> > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best cause to be true."
> > >
> > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written about him.
> > >
> > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>

:0) Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton are both ardent and longterm Ricardians...thank God!....They both knock Dr Starkey into a cocked hat.......Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen. It's a very interesting book and I picked it up on Amazon for a song. It's not written for the general public, unfortunately, and sometimes you cannot tell where the documents originated or where they are going! The notes from the authors are very insightful. Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able to afford unless I win the lottery..
> > Eileen
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument, what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross, Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in him.
> > > >
> > > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > > > http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > > >
> > > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best cause to be true."
> > > >
> > > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written about him.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Whoop, whoop, just bought a hard copy on Amazon, used but in good condition! This is just a thought, but could our Society sponsor a trip? We might not have Sharon K. Penman, but it also might not be so costly???? Just a thought. I bet someone at University of Leicester is already outing a plan together!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 11:59 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...



:0) Peter Hammond and Anne Sutton are both ardent and longterm Ricardians...thank God!....They both knock Dr Starkey into a cocked hat.......Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen. It's a very interesting book and I picked it up on Amazon for a song. It's not written for the general public, unfortunately, and sometimes you cannot tell where the documents originated or where they are going! The notes from the authors are very insightful. Maire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able to afford unless I win the lottery..
> > Eileen
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument, what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross, Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in him.
> > > >
> > > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > > > http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > > >
> > > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best cause to be true."
> > > >
> > > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written about him.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I have to admit that the play makes Richard such an extreme caricature, that I have wondered whether WS was actually doing something similar as he did with  Marcus Antonius at Caesar's funeral

Aidan


BTW, we've progressed from being emotional "women of a certain age" in love with a dead king. We're now just fanatics (age and sex not specified) trying to persuade the world that Richard wasn't what Shakespeare said he was despite Polydore Vergil (who never saw Richard) having gotten the physical description right (He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother. No apparent realization on the part of the writer that "deformyd of body" refers to the shoulder and nothing else.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/05/we-told-you-so-richard-iii-society-celebrates-their-hero-s-rediscovery.html

Carol

Hi, Eileen & Everyone -

I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also VG
condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement one's
Ricardian library. (smile)



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 EileenB
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...





Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap
2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have
worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and
taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
to afford unless I win the lottery..
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Karen Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means
the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
and unfavourable. {Snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
"hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
him.
> >
> > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's
no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know
the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one
ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> >
> > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
through Google Books as a free e-book:
> >
http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
.html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> >
> > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism
in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed
to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
cause to be true."
> >
> > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
about him.
> >
> > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect
that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Did you order it from Amazon used books? They are taking longer and longer to deliver used books. I've been waiting for almost two months for certain Ricardian books.

Did anyone know that there are two children's novels out there about Richard? One about Richard and his son Edward? Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
> I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also VG
> condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement one's
> Ricardian library. (smile)
>
>
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap
> 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have
> worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and
> taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
> to afford unless I win the lottery..
> Eileen
> --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
> Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
> documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
> language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
> it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
> haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means
> the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
> he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
> him.
> > >
> > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's
> no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
> If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
> letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
> too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
> suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know
> the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
> It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one
> ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > >
> > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
> that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
> Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
> commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > >
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > >
> > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism
> in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
> Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
> what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed
> to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
> known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
> art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
> understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
> marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
> years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> cause to be true."
> > >
> > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
> accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
> balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> about him.
> > >
> > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
> Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect
> that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
> contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I just wish I'd mentioned it at all- I've brought it up to virtually everyone
else this week.

I just don't want to push it too hard, you know? I don't even know if he knows I
know what he does for a living; I only discovered it because I was Googling his
wife's name to see if there was a picture of her with the kids (I'd somehow had
it in my head that she worked with another one of the moms I work for, and I'd
stumbled across a photo of the other mom with her little guy a while back). The
last thing I can afford right now is to come off as too opportunistic or
exploitative.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 10:31:29 AM
Subject: Re: Richards image...


Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> ...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those
>of you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I
>mean, I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or
>on the program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I
>have no idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an
>expert
>
> ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
>resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
>be very useful.
>
Carol responds:

I've started watching ABC's "Good Morning America" (or NBC's "Today") rather
than "CBS This Morning" because CBS's Mark Phillips bungled the Richard III
story so badly, not once but twice (when the skeleton was first announced and
when it was identified) by conflating the historical Richard with Shakespeare's
version. He redeemed himself partially by a much less biased report on the CBS
Evening News February 4. I can only guess that he attended and was enlightened
by the press conference.

I didn't watch ABC's coverage of the Richard III announcements so I don't know
their take on it, but surely some representative of the station was there among
the 150 reporters from various countries. If your executive producer is somehow
unaware that Richard is the biggest thing to hit the news since William and
Kate's wedding (bigger, actually, since it relates to science and history and,
with the facial reconstruction, appeals to that crucial demographic of female
viewers in their teens and twenties), you can show him the Newsweek stories, the
National Geographic story, the Tumblr stuff you quoted--he's got to be living
under a rock if he doesn't know how big this is.

*And* he should know who Philippa Langley is. Almost as many people have heard
of her now as have heard of Richard. This is his big chance to get the scoop and
do a serious segment on her and the Richard III Society. (It's too bad that
Annette Carson backed out of the project; she would have been a more serious and
intellectual representative, but at this point she's a relative unknown and
probably wouldn't consent to an interview. But Philippa might.

As for how you would bring it up, how about "Are you planning to do any more
coverage of Richard III? I think he's fascinating and so do an amazing number of
people. You should do a segment on the Richard III Society. I'll bet Philippa
Langley would do an interview."

One caveat, though. She's aware that CBS took her words out of context and made
her description of Shakespeare's Richard appear to be a description of the
historical king. She would want to make certain that a rival American TV network
didn't play the same trick.

Go for it. Please go for it.

Carol

Megan
Do whatever you are comfortable with
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:49 PM, Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...> wrote:

> I just wish I'd mentioned it at all- I've brought it up to virtually everyone
> else this week.
>
> I just don't want to push it too hard, you know? I don't even know if he knows I
> know what he does for a living; I only discovered it because I was Googling his
> wife's name to see if there was a picture of her with the kids (I'd somehow had
> it in my head that she worked with another one of the moms I work for, and I'd
> stumbled across a photo of the other mom with her little guy a while back). The
> last thing I can afford right now is to come off as too opportunistic or
> exploitative.
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 10:31:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > ...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those
> >of you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I
> >mean, I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or
> >on the program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I
> >have no idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an
> >expert
> >
> > ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
> >resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
> >be very useful.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I've started watching ABC's "Good Morning America" (or NBC's "Today") rather
> than "CBS This Morning" because CBS's Mark Phillips bungled the Richard III
> story so badly, not once but twice (when the skeleton was first announced and
> when it was identified) by conflating the historical Richard with Shakespeare's
> version. He redeemed himself partially by a much less biased report on the CBS
> Evening News February 4. I can only guess that he attended and was enlightened
> by the press conference.
>
> I didn't watch ABC's coverage of the Richard III announcements so I don't know
> their take on it, but surely some representative of the station was there among
> the 150 reporters from various countries. If your executive producer is somehow
> unaware that Richard is the biggest thing to hit the news since William and
> Kate's wedding (bigger, actually, since it relates to science and history and,
> with the facial reconstruction, appeals to that crucial demographic of female
> viewers in their teens and twenties), you can show him the Newsweek stories, the
> National Geographic story, the Tumblr stuff you quoted--he's got to be living
> under a rock if he doesn't know how big this is.
>
> *And* he should know who Philippa Langley is. Almost as many people have heard
> of her now as have heard of Richard. This is his big chance to get the scoop and
> do a serious segment on her and the Richard III Society. (It's too bad that
> Annette Carson backed out of the project; she would have been a more serious and
> intellectual representative, but at this point she's a relative unknown and
> probably wouldn't consent to an interview. But Philippa might.
>
> As for how you would bring it up, how about "Are you planning to do any more
> coverage of Richard III? I think he's fascinating and so do an amazing number of
> people. You should do a segment on the Richard III Society. I'll bet Philippa
> Langley would do an interview."
>
> One caveat, though. She's aware that CBS took her words out of context and made
> her description of Shakespeare's Richard appear to be a description of the
> historical king. She would want to make certain that a rival American TV network
> didn't play the same trick.
>
> Go for it. Please go for it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>

I can check....

On Feb 9, 2013, at 12:49 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



Did you order it from Amazon used books? They are taking longer and longer to deliver used books. I've been waiting for almost two months for certain Ricardian books.

Did anyone know that there are two children's novels out there about Richard? One about Richard and his son Edward? Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
> I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also VG
> condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement one's
> Ricardian library. (smile)
>
>
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap
> 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have
> worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and
> taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
> to afford unless I win the lottery..
> Eileen
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
> Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
> documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
> language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
> it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
> haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means
> the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
> he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
> him.
> > >
> > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's
> no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
> If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
> letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
> too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
> suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know
> the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
> It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one
> ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > >
> > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
> that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
> Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
> commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > >
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > >
> > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism
> in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
> Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
> what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed
> to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
> known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
> art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
> understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
> marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
> years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> cause to be true."
> > >
> > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
> accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
> balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> about him.
> > >
> > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
> Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect
> that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
> contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Maire!

Well I had huge probs with the first copy of the *Coronation* that I
ordered, and I never got it. Got a full refund, tho, and ordered from either
alibris or ABEbooks and got it in short order. That's a book I'm glad to
have.



Anyway, I'm really hoping *RIII: the Road to Bosworth* will be quicker,
because it's coming from a UK firm. I've had good luck from the other ones
I've ordered from, and livrenoir has a 97% positive record.



Keep fingers crossed! I'll let you know when I get it.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne







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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 2:49 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...





Did you order it from Amazon used books? They are taking longer and longer
to deliver used books. I've been waiting for almost two months for certain
Ricardian books.

Did anyone know that there are two children's novels out there about
Richard? One about Richard and his son Edward? Maire.

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
> I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also
VG
> condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement
one's
> Ricardian library. (smile)
>
>
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up
cheap
> 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would
have
> worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation
and
> taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
> to afford unless I win the lottery..
> Eileen
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
> Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
> documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
> language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
> it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
> haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all
means
> the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate
very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how
young
> he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest
in
> him.
> > >
> > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles
(there's
> no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
> If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
> letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
> too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
> suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to
know
> the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
> It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the
one
> ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > >
> > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
> that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
> Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore
his
> commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > >
>
http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > >
> > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that
extremism
> in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
> Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
> what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as
opposed
> to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
> known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
> art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe
they'll
> understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom
to
> marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still
recalled
> years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> cause to be true."
> > >
> > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
> accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's
your
> balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> about him.
> > >
> > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
> Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I
suspect
> that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
> contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Since I'm keeping tabs on all the Ricardian used books, I can tell you that the prices have jumped this week. Good for Richard, bad for me! Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Maire!
>
> Well I had huge probs with the first copy of the *Coronation* that I
> ordered, and I never got it. Got a full refund, tho, and ordered from either
> alibris or ABEbooks and got it in short order. That's a book I'm glad to
> have.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I'm really hoping *RIII: the Road to Bosworth* will be quicker,
> because it's coming from a UK firm. I've had good luck from the other ones
> I've ordered from, and livrenoir has a 97% positive record.
>
>
>
> Keep fingers crossed! I'll let you know when I get it.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 2:49 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
> Did you order it from Amazon used books? They are taking longer and longer
> to deliver used books. I've been waiting for almost two months for certain
> Ricardian books.
>
> Did anyone know that there are two children's novels out there about
> Richard? One about Richard and his son Edward? Maire.
>
> --- In
> , Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
> >
> > I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> > Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also
> VG
> > condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement
> one's
> > Ricardian library. (smile)
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 EileenB
> > Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Richards image...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up
> cheap
> > 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would
> have
> > worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation
> and
> > taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
> > to afford unless I win the lottery..
> > Eileen
> > --- In
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
> > Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
> > documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
> > language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
> > it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
> > haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all
> means
> > the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate
> very
> > strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> > and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> > what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> > Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> > general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> > Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> > "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> > direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how
> young
> > he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest
> in
> > him.
> > > >
> > > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles
> (there's
> > no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
> > If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
> > letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
> > too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
> > suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to
> know
> > the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
> > It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the
> one
> > ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
> > that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
> > Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore
> his
> > commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> > Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> > the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> > through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > > >
> >
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> > .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > > >
> > > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that
> extremism
> > in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
> > Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
> > what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as
> opposed
> > to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
> > known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
> > art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe
> they'll
> > understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom
> to
> > marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> > sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still
> recalled
> > years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> > cause to be true."
> > > >
> > > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
> > accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's
> your
> > balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> > about him.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
> > Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I
> suspect
> > that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
> > contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why am I not surprised? I'm really glad I've ordered most of the goodies
that I seriously wanted. Now I just have to find time to read them!



Also, maybe it would be worth joining that Facebook group that Lisa advised
us of.


Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



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

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

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

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

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



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 3:33 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...





Since I'm keeping tabs on all the Ricardian used books, I can tell you that
the prices have jumped this week. Good for Richard, bad for me! Maire.

Thanks Johanne - & please post your unwanted Ricardian/similar items on
there - including your own authored books / manuscripts etc - its free!!

Cheers
Lisa & Charlie

On 9 February 2013 15:49, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Why am I not surprised? I'm really glad I've ordered most of the goodies
> that I seriously wanted. Now I just have to find time to read them!
>
> Also, maybe it would be worth joining that Facebook group that Lisa advised
> us of.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> mairemulholland
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 3:33 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
> Since I'm keeping tabs on all the Ricardian used books, I can tell you that
> the prices have jumped this week. Good for Richard, bad for me! Maire.
>
>
>
>
>



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

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

Yeah, as you surmise, as long as you ignore his commentary, it's useful. I wasn't impressed with the comprehensiveness of the material he quotes, plus it doesn't seem to be sourced from originals, but from other commentaries, like the Hammond/Sutton "Road to Bosworth". I got my copy on eBay for... I dunno, a couple of bucks for the book and a couple of bucks for shipping. Less than ten dollars, certainly.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> >
> Carol again:
>
> Oops. Sorry, Karen. I just realized that you haven't read it yet. Can anyone else answer my questions?
>
> Carol
>

Oh, you asked another question, beg your pardon. Modern English with modern spelling. I'd rather have, like, a chronological Web-based archive of facsimiles of original documents with translations, myself.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> >
> Carol again:
>
> Oops. Sorry, Karen. I just realized that you haven't read it yet. Can anyone else answer my questions?
>
> Carol
>

> BTW, we've progressed from being emotional "women of a certain age" in love with a dead king. We're now just fanatics (age and sex not specified) trying to persuade the world that Richard wasn't what Shakespeare said he was despite Polydore Vergil (who never saw Richard) having gotten the physical description right (“He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother”. No apparent realization on the part of the writer that "deformyd of body" refers to the shoulder and nothing else.)

PV evidently lifted that description straight from Rous. I think Rous was trying to say that his body was defective BECAUSE one should was higher than the other, but taking it as two separate things made for much better propaganda.
Marie

There's very little about Richard in Gairdner's Letters and Papers. It's mostly devoted to Henry VII, and several pages at the start are actually the account of Edward IV's funeral. Also Richard's correspondence with the Earl of Kildare is mistakenly aattributed to belong to Henry VII. Besides, the primary documents in it are by no means all letters from the King; the same holds true for Dockray. I would agree that a compilation of Richard's own letters and edicts is called for.
Marie

--- In , Karen Clark wrote:
>
> Carol said:
>
> "But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no
> favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If
> we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters
> (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?),
> his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we
> could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real
> Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what
> he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering
> the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers."
>
> I would have thought any good source book (or web archive) would include all
> of this. The Gairdner is bookmarked. Once I got my head around google books,
> I've found so many primary documents. There are great archives on the
> internet and pulling one together, specifically to do with Richard, is a
> great idea.
>
> My own personal 'Richard' journey has taken me from uncritical acceptance of
> the whole revisionist story to the point I'm at now, where I'm personally
> ready to find the balance. I'm not there yet, which is why I question a lot
> of things, but I will get there.
>
> Karen
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 16:49:18 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Karen Clark wrote:
> >
> > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I haven't
> bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means the Society
> could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very strongly for
> something that included *all* the source material, favourable and unfavourable.
> {Snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
> he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
> him.
>
> But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's no
> favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him), If
> we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his letters
> (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those, too?),
> his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I suppose we
> could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know the real
> Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him. It's what
> he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one ordering
> the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
>
> By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers that
> he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of Richard
> III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
> commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> through Google Books as a free e-book:
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
>
> Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism in
> favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it. Richard
> was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now, what we
> need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed to the
> words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well known). And
> now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and art can
> reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
> understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
> marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
> years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> cause to be true."
>
> If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the accuracy
> or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
> balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> about him.
>
> BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source Book,"
> which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect that
> the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it contain and
> are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think there's also a general impression that we somehow doubt the
Hastings/Rivers/Vaughn executions happened, and... well, I don't know about
anyone else but I tend to immediately point that out as "Yeah, that did happen."




________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 3:38:12 PM
Subject: Re: Richards image...



> BTW, we've progressed from being emotional "women of a certain age" in love
>with a dead king. We're now just fanatics (age and sex not specified) trying to
>persuade the world that Richard wasn't what Shakespeare said he was despite
>Polydore Vergil (who never saw Richard) having gotten the physical description
>right (He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher
>than thother. No apparent realization on the part of the writer that "deformyd
>of body" refers to the shoulder and nothing else.)

PV evidently lifted that description straight from Rous. I think Rous was
trying to say that his body was defective BECAUSE one should was higher than the
other, but taking it as two separate things made for much better propaganda.
Marie

Yeah, if you can find one for under $30 total with shipping, I'd nab it now: that's a good price. Interest in Ricardian studies is about to skyrocket and we don't know when, or if, "Road to Bosworth" is going to be reprinted.

--- In , Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
> I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also VG
> condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement one's
> Ricardian library. (smile)
>
>
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap
> 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have
> worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and
> taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
> to afford unless I win the lottery..
> Eileen
> --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
> Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
> documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
> language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
> it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
> haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means
> the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
> he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
> him.
> > >
> > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's
> no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
> If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
> letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
> too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
> suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know
> the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
> It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one
> ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > >
> > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
> that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
> Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
> commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > >
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > >
> > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism
> in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
> Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
> what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed
> to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
> known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
> art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
> understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
> marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
> years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> cause to be true."
> > >
> > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
> accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
> balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> about him.
> > >
> > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
> Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect
> that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
> contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think you're right to be guided by your sense of caution. Still and all, saying, "Hey, did you guys hear they found Richard III?" is a harmless conversational gambit.

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> I just wish I'd mentioned it at all- I've brought it up to virtually everyone
> else this week.
>
> I just don't want to push it too hard, you know? I don't even know if he knows I
> know what he does for a living; I only discovered it because I was Googling his
> wife's name to see if there was a picture of her with the kids (I'd somehow had
> it in my head that she worked with another one of the moms I work for, and I'd
> stumbled across a photo of the other mom with her little guy a while back). The
> last thing I can afford right now is to come off as too opportunistic or
> exploitative.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sat, February 9, 2013 10:31:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > ...I work for the executive producer of Good Morning America, which for those
> >of you who aren't from the US is a nationally viewed morning news program. I
> >mean, I watch his kids sometimes, I don't work for him *because* of his role or
> >on the program myself, but it's a liason to a national platform nonetheless. I
> >have no idea how I could go about even bringing it up, but if we could get an
> >expert
> >
> > ready to talk about the subject of Richard's image and capitalize on his
> >resurgence in the news... I don't know. It just occurred to me that this could
> >be very useful.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I've started watching ABC's "Good Morning America" (or NBC's "Today") rather
> than "CBS This Morning" because CBS's Mark Phillips bungled the Richard III
> story so badly, not once but twice (when the skeleton was first announced and
> when it was identified) by conflating the historical Richard with Shakespeare's
> version. He redeemed himself partially by a much less biased report on the CBS
> Evening News February 4. I can only guess that he attended and was enlightened
> by the press conference.
>
> I didn't watch ABC's coverage of the Richard III announcements so I don't know
> their take on it, but surely some representative of the station was there among
> the 150 reporters from various countries. If your executive producer is somehow
> unaware that Richard is the biggest thing to hit the news since William and
> Kate's wedding (bigger, actually, since it relates to science and history and,
> with the facial reconstruction, appeals to that crucial demographic of female
> viewers in their teens and twenties), you can show him the Newsweek stories, the
> National Geographic story, the Tumblr stuff you quoted--he's got to be living
> under a rock if he doesn't know how big this is.
>
> *And* he should know who Philippa Langley is. Almost as many people have heard
> of her now as have heard of Richard. This is his big chance to get the scoop and
> do a serious segment on her and the Richard III Society. (It's too bad that
> Annette Carson backed out of the project; she would have been a more serious and
> intellectual representative, but at this point she's a relative unknown and
> probably wouldn't consent to an interview. But Philippa might.
>
> As for how you would bring it up, how about "Are you planning to do any more
> coverage of Richard III? I think he's fascinating and so do an amazing number of
> people. You should do a segment on the Richard III Society. I'll bet Philippa
> Langley would do an interview."
>
> One caveat, though. She's aware that CBS took her words out of context and made
> her description of Shakespeare's Richard appear to be a description of the
> historical king. She would want to make certain that a rival American TV network
> didn't play the same trick.
>
> Go for it. Please go for it.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

It is on Amazon in used book section, and can be purchased for $5 and up, depending on the condition.

On Feb 9, 2013, at 2:51 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



Yeah, if you can find one for under $30 total with shipping, I'd nab it now: that's a good price. Interest in Ricardian studies is about to skyrocket and we don't know when, or if, "Road to Bosworth" is going to be reprinted.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
> I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also VG
> condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement one's
> Ricardian library. (smile)
>
>
>
> 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 EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:37 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh yes Maire...totally agree. What an excellent book. I picked mine up cheap
> 2nd hand. Loved the pictures of the crowns that Anne and Richard would have
> worn at their Coronation...and also quite a lot covering the Coronation and
> taken from The Coronation of Richard lll which I am never going to be able
> to afford unless I win the lottery..
> Eileen
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I have in front of me "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" by P.W.
> Hammond & Anne F. Sutton. It has a huge amount of personal and state
> documents relating to Richard. It's obviously a treasure trove but the
> language of the documentation is soooooooooo difficult for an amateur. But
> it's chock full of interesting details. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Karen Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think a Richard III source book would be a very useful thing. I
> haven't bought Dockray's yet, though I have two others of his. By all means
> the Society could get behind the publication of a new one. I'd advocate very
> strongly for something that included *all* the source material, favourable
> and unfavourable. {Snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > While it's certainly true that readers need both sides of an argument,
> what's needed now is (IMO) not "balance" (which we get in Charles Ross,
> Pollard, et al.) but an awareness but simple awareness on the part of the
> general public that Shakespeare is not history. (Thank you, Professor
> Bloom.) The facial reconstruction has done a great deal to offset the
> "hunchback" myth (I know; it's swinging the pendulum in the other
> direction!). At least it has caused the general public to realize how young
> he was, and in our youth-oriented culture, that at least sparks interest in
> him.
> > >
> > > But I think what's called for here is not competing chronicles (there's
> no favorable chronicle, only snippets of praise from people who knew him),
> If we want to know the real Richard, we need a complete edition of his
> letters (and the few responses that have survived--did someone burn those,
> too?), his legislation, anything that had his own hand involved in it. I
> suppose we could include endowments and so forth. But if people want to know
> the real Richard, the place to start is not what people said *about* him.
> It's what he said himself. If only we could find more documents like the one
> ordering the Christian reburial of the Towton soldiers.
> > >
> > > By the way, Gairdner of all people did collect the letters and papers
> that he knew about in "Letters and papers illustrative of the reigns of
> Richard III and Henry VII," which is a good place to start if you ignore his
> commentary (or, like Inspector Grant's American researcher reading
> Gairdner's biography of Richard, laugh at Gairdner's struggle to reconcile
> the evidence with his Shakespeare-based preconceptions). it's available
> through Google Books as a free e-book:
> > >
> http://books.google.com/books/about/Letters_and_papers_illustrative_of_the_r
> .html?id=ocpCAAAAYAAJ
> > >
> > > Balance is important and over time will win out. I quite that extremism
> in favor of a cause is quite as damaging as extremism in opposing it.
> Richard was no more a saint than he was a murderous tyrant. But for now,
> what we need to see (IMO) is Richard as his own words reveal him (as opposed
> to the words that Shakespeare put in his mouth, which are all too well
> known). And now that people have seen his face (or as close as science and
> art can reconstruct it), it's time for them to read his words. Maybe they'll
> understand the bewildered generosity of his letter allowing Thomas Lynom to
> marry Mistress Shore if Bishop Russell can't talk sense into him, his
> sadness over the loss of his friends at Barnet and Tewkesbury still recalled
> years later, his justifiable outrage at the betrayal of "him who had best
> cause to be true."
> > >
> > > If they see the real Richard through documents, they can judge the
> accuracy or lack of it and detect the biases of the chronicles. There's your
> balance--what he wrote or directed to be written versus what was written
> about him.
> > >
> > > BTW, Karen, I assume that you're referring to "Richard III: A Source
> Book," which I haven't read. Since Dockray is no fan of Richard's, I suspect
> that the commentary is not exactly impartial. Which documents does it
> contain and are they in the original spelling, modern English, or both?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Which ones are those? I have a copy of Marguerite Vance's Song For A Lute which is a 1950s juvenile, and I seem to remember reading others as well in the late 1960s or very early 1970s, but haven't a clue what they were now.

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> Did you order it from Amazon used books? They are taking longer and longer to deliver used books. I've been waiting for almost two months for certain Ricardian books.
>
> Did anyone know that there are two children's novels out there about Richard? One about Richard and his son Edward? Maire.
>

It the discussion on Rous I don't think anyone has mentioned the
laudatory version of his history written while Richard was alive, and
thought destroyed. It is of course the exact opposite to everything he
wrote in the Henry VII presentation volume!
Paul

On 09/02/2013 20:38, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>> BTW, we've progressed from being emotional "women of a certain age" in love with a dead king. We're now just fanatics (age and sex not specified) trying to persuade the world that Richard wasn't what Shakespeare said he was despite Polydore Vergil (who never saw Richard) having gotten the physical description right (â¬SHe was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thotherâ¬ý. No apparent realization on the part of the writer that "deformyd of body" refers to the shoulder and nothing else.)
> PV evidently lifted that description straight from Rous. I think Rous was trying to say that his body was defective BECAUSE one should was higher than the other, but taking it as two separate things made for much better propaganda.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Carol earlier:
> > BTW, we've progressed from being emotional "women of a certain age" in love with a dead king. We're now just fanatics (age and sex not specified) trying to persuade the world that Richard wasn't what Shakespeare said he was despite Polydore Vergil (who never saw Richard) having gotten the physical description right (He was lyttle of stature, deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother. No apparent realization on the part of the writer that "deformyd of body" refers to the shoulder and nothing else.)

Marie responded:
> PV evidently lifted that description straight from Rous. I think Rous was trying to say that his body was defective BECAUSE one should was higher than the other, but taking it as two separate things made for much better propaganda.

Carol again:

First, I may have been unclear. By "the writer," I meant the writer of the article, who is quoting Vergil, not Vergil himself.

However, I think that Vergil (like Rous) meant that Richard's body was defective ("deformyd" in Vergil) BECAUSE of the raised shoulder, but the wording is ambiguous because he uses "being" rather than "because," and placing the idea of deformity before the extent of the "deformity" obscures the idea that the raised shoulder IS the "deformity." Of course, we're back to Vergil's version being a translation and I don't know how it read in the Latin original or whether it presented the same impression (passed on to Hall/Holinshed and from Holinshed to Shakespeare).

Have you noticed, Marie, that Rous says Richard had a short face, which we now know (and could always surmise from the portraiture) was untrue? I wonder what that was about.

Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

It does make clear that Richard did not have kyphosis, and it traces the use and connotations of "crookback" (or "croke backed") and comments tellingly:

"In studying the early descriptions of Richard's disability, however, it is telling to notice the words which are *not* applied to him. To our knowledge, Richard is not described as "bunch-backed" in print until Shakespeare . . . Rather than deliberately inventing the hunchbacked Richard, though, Shakespeare may have interpreted the word "crookback" as referring to this kind of spinal deformity. The OED's first recorded use of "hunch-backed" is the second quarto of Richard III (1598), 4.iv, when Queen Elizabeth calls him "that foule hunch-backt toade" ("bunch-backt" in the first quarto; Q2's variation is retained in later quartos). In one sense at least, it is plausible that Shakespeare (or perhaps one of his printers) is the inventor of the hunch-backed Richard, and that this term stems either from a typesetting error or from a misreading. If so, it is indicative of how influential Shakespeare's version of Richard's body has been.

"'Crookback' also holds the suggestion of a narrower application, and one more appropriate to the Grey Friars skeleton. A seventeenth-century translation of the works of the French royal surgeon Ambroise Paré categorizes spinal deformities as follows:

"'A dislocated vertebra, standing forth and making a bunch, is termed in Greeke Cyphosis, (Those thus affected we may call, Bunch-backt.) But when it is depressed, it is named Lordosis, (Such we may terme, Saddle-backt.) But when the same is luxated to the right or left side, it maketh a Scoliosis (or Crookednesse,) which wresting the spine, drawes it into the similitude of this letter S.'"

Anyway, the article, despite the unfortunate title, looks fascinating and informative, and will be read by many university professors and others with an interest in Shakespeare (or Richard III). Off to read it more carefully now.

Carol

The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March  on this topic.  Anyone going?


________________________________
 justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote: (snip)




Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>>
>" Have you noticed, Marie, that Rous says Richard had a short face, which we now know (and could always surmise from the portraiture) was untrue? I wonder what that was about."

I was interested to see the facial reconstruction for that reason. I never thought "short face" was the correct translation. This is the original Latin and my translation. The words usually translated as "short face" are in caps, as is my alternative translation of them:

"Parvae staturae erat, CURTAM HABENS FACIEM, inaequales humeros, dexter superior sinisterque inferior." (p.215)
Translation:
He was of small stature, HAVING A DEFECTIVE APPEARANCE (unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower).
See how close that is to what Vergil says?
Marie


>

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> I think there's also a general impression that we somehow doubt the
> Hastings/Rivers/Vaughn executions happened, and... well, I don't know about anyone else but I tend to immediately point that out as "Yeah, that did happen."

Carol responds:

However, Rous, no friend of Richard's, states that Rivers, Richard Grey, and Vaughn were tried by the Earl of Northumberland, not executed without trial on Richard's orders as the traditionalist historians would have us believed. Rous was in the North and in a position to know the facts of the matter, and he certainly would not have invented a detail to improve Richard's image.

Hastings is, of course, another matter, and everything depends on whether you believe, as I do, that he was involved in a conspiracy against Richard's life. Setting aside the two "Princes in the Tower," Hastings' death is the most controversial aspect of Richard's life and career. Peter Hancock has a book about it called "Richard III and the Murder in the Tower" (not altogether convincing in my view but interesting nonetheless). His villain is Catesby.

Unfortunately, the period between Edward IV's death and Richard's coronation on which his reputation for "ruthlessness" is based is the least well-documented part of his life. All we have to go on are the Croyland Chronicler, who disliked Richard and gives so few details that he must not have been present at the council meetings, and Mancini, an Italian who probably spoke no English and certainly was not present, getting his information from Edward V's physician Dr. Argentine and other sources not favorably disposed toward Richard, along with one letter based on rumor and giving an ambiguous date. For that reason, some historians have resorted to using the detailed but highly embroidered and distorted account in More, setting aside the withered arm, because it may derive from someone who definitely was present, Archbishop Morton, the most biased source possible.

Richard's letters indicate that there was a conspiracy to kill him and Buckingham. Stillington may have made his revelation of Edward IV's marriage (not betrothal) to Eleanor Butler at about that same time. We don't know what happened or why, only that Hastings was suddenly executed, apparently without a trial (but perhaps not without a chance of confession to a priest) after a council meeting. It's very disturbing and confusing, and most unfortunate from the standpoint of Richard's reputation because Hastings has been presumed innocent by so many commentators.

But even if he's guilty of one judicial murder, we have to consider the times and the circumstances, especially the dangers that Richard faced as Protector. In comparison with his predecessors and his successors, that one "crime" can be compared with Warwick's unlawful execution of two Woodville relatives (without trial), Edward IV's execution of his own brother (with a mockery of a trial though Clarence was certainly guilty) and of Henry VI (without trial), and the Tudors' systematic extermination of Yorkist heirs. At worst, Richard was a man of his times (as the moderate traditionalists call him). But the execution of Hastings without trial was an uncharacteristic action, not repeated. Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey did have a trial. So, of course, did Buckingham. We know that Buckingham deserved his fate. Shouldn't we consider the possibility that the others, including Hastings, did, too?

Carol

Thanks for the ref to the TLS article, Carol! I notice that the authors are
both professors at the Univ. of Leicester. I wonder if Leicester is going to
become the “go-to” school for Ricardian Studies? And the Late Middle Ages
and the WOTR? Would be kind of cool, wouldn’t it?



BTW, reading your summary of the words “bunch-backt” and “hunch-backt” I
can’t tell if they are both legitimate Elizabethan descriptions or not. Are
you (or the authors of the article) suggesting that the original term
applied to Richard was “bunch-backt” – and if so, what does that mean, as
opposed to “hunch-backt,” which I get.



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: Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...



[JLT] <snip>

Carol wrote:
Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the
Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback"
discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim
it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources
in a very prestigious publication:

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

It does make clear that Richard did not have kyphosis, and it traces the use
and connotations of "crookback" (or "croke backed") and comments tellingly:

"In studying the early descriptions of Richard's disability, however, it is
telling to notice the words which are *not* applied to him. To our
knowledge, Richard is not described as "bunch-backed" in print until
Shakespeare . . . Rather than deliberately inventing the hunchbacked
Richard, though, Shakespeare may have interpreted the word "crookback" as
referring to this kind of spinal deformity. The OED's first recorded use of
"hunch-backed" is the second quarto of Richard III (1598), 4.iv, when Queen
Elizabeth calls him "that foule hunch-backt toade" ("bunch-backt" in the
first quarto; Q2's variation is retained in later quartos). In one sense at
least, it is plausible that Shakespeare (or perhaps one of his printers) is
the inventor of the hunch-backed Richard, and that this term stems either
from a typesetting error or from a misreading. If so, it is indicative of
how influential Shakespeare's version of Richard's body has been.

"'Crookback' also holds the suggestion of a narrower application, and one
more appropriate to the Grey Friars skeleton. A seventeenth-century
translation of the works of the French royal surgeon Ambroise Paré
categorizes spinal deformities as follows:

"'A dislocated vertebra, standing forth and making a bunch, is termed in
Greeke Cyphosis, (Those thus affected we may call, Bunch-backt.) But when it
is depressed, it is named Lordosis, (Such we may terme, Saddle-backt.) But
when the same is luxated to the right or left side, it maketh a Scoliosis
(or Crookednesse,) which wresting the spine, drawes it into the similitude
of this letter S.'"

Anyway, the article, despite the unfortunate title, looks fascinating and
informative, and will be read by many university professors and others with
an interest in Shakespeare (or Richard III). Off to read it more carefully
now.

Carol

Carol earlier:
> >>
> >" Have you noticed, Marie, that Rous says Richard had a short face, which we now know (and could always surmise from the portraiture) was untrue? I wonder what that was about."

Marie responded:
> I was interested to see the facial reconstruction for that reason. I never thought "short face" was the correct translation. This is the original Latin and my translation. The words usually translated as "short face" are in caps, as is my alternative translation of them:
>
> "Parvae staturae erat, CURTAM HABENS FACIEM, inaequales humeros, dexter superior sinisterque inferior." (p.215)
> Translation:
> He was of small stature, HAVING A DEFECTIVE APPEARANCE (unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower).
> See how close that is to what Vergil says?

Carol says:

Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!

Hope you found that as funny as I did.

Carol

I'm still trying to figure out what "short face" is even supposed to mean. Was
he suggesting Richard looked like he'd run into a wall? That he didn't have much
in the way of chin?



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sun, February 10, 2013 9:23:06 PM
Subject: Re: Richards image...


Carol says:

Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this
further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's
translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!

Hope you found that as funny as I did.

Carol

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>

> Thanks for the ref to the TLS article, Carol! I notice that the authors are both professors at the Univ. of Leicester. I wonder if Leicester is going to become the "go-to" school for Ricardian Studies? And the Late Middle Ages and the WOTR? Would be kind of cool, wouldn't it?
>

> BTW, reading your summary of the words "bunch-backt" and "hunch-backt" I can't tell if they are both legitimate Elizabethan descriptions or not. Are you (or the authors of the article) suggesting that the original term applied to Richard was "bunch-backt" – and if so, what does that mean, as opposed to "hunch-backt," which I get.

Carol responds:

It wasn't my summary. It was a quotation from the article. I was a bit confused as well, but apparently the authors think that "hunchback" was a typesetter's error ("printo"?) for "bunchback," which apparently means having a hump on the back. I need to reread it when I have time and leisure (when will that be at this rate? And how will I get any work done tomorrow when I'm so behind on reading posts?). If I'm not mistaken, the authors were connected with the Leicester project and may, at a guess, have supplied Lin Foxhall with quotations (given that she's head of the Archaeology department), but if so their role was very much behind the scenes.

At any rate, they could write a whole book on the topic of Shakespeare's "Richard III" in relation to the chronicles (not to mention his Richard vs. the real Richard) and I hope they do. The topic has recently been attempted very ineptly in a Kindle book. They would do it the way it should be done.

Carol

Hi, Carol & Marie -

Could a "good" translation be "having a short appearance." That would
certainly make sense.



Yes, I chuckled out loud at "Curtis had a face." That's probably true, too,
LOL!



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: Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:23 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...





Carol earlier:
> >>
> >" Have you noticed, Marie, that Rous says Richard had a short face, which
we now know (and could always surmise from the portraiture) was untrue? I
wonder what that was about."

Marie responded:
> I was interested to see the facial reconstruction for that reason. I never
thought "short face" was the correct translation. This is the original Latin
and my translation. The words usually translated as "short face" are in
caps, as is my alternative translation of them:
>
> "Parvae staturae erat, CURTAM HABENS FACIEM, inaequales humeros, dexter
superior sinisterque inferior." (p.215)
> Translation:
> He was of small stature, HAVING A DEFECTIVE APPEARANCE (unequal shoulders,
the right higher and the left lower).
> See how close that is to what Vergil says?

Carol says:

Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this
further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's
translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!

Hope you found that as funny as I did.

Carol

"In short, he had face."

(OK, so that doesn't make any sense either, unless there was a Renaissance equivalent to "He got game.")

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what "short face" is even supposed to mean. Was
> he suggesting Richard looked like he'd run into a wall? That he didn't have much
> in the way of chin?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Sun, February 10, 2013 9:23:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Richards image...
>
>
> Carol says:
>
> Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this
> further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's
> translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!
>
> Hope you found that as funny as I did.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK, my Latin consists of phrases from Mass, 10,000 years. But Curtis had a face hit my funny bone this morning!
Carpe diem





From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Megan Lerseth
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richards image...



I'm still trying to figure out what "short face" is even supposed to mean. Was
he suggesting Richard looked like he'd run into a wall? That he didn't have much
in the way of chin?

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, February 10, 2013 9:23:06 PM
Subject: Re: Richards image...

Carol says:

Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this
further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's
translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!

Hope you found that as funny as I did.

Carol

Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> Could a "good" translation be "having a short appearance." That would certainly make sense.
>
> Yes, I chuckled out loud at "Curtis had a face." That's probably true, too,
> LOL!

Carol responds:

I went to the Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid where you can type in stems and endings. "Curtam" can mean either "shortened," "mutliated," "defective," or even "gelded," the last of which clearly doesn't apply here. "Facie" can mean "form," "figure," "shape," or "face." You can see where "short face" came from but the translator should have realized that it had no connection with uneven shoulders. I think I would choose "having a defective form" (or "figure"). Rous's English version would be no help because it contains the good or neutral things he said about Richard during Richard's lifetime before he expunged and altered them for Henry's benefit.

But, in any case, translation is not an exact science and can cause misconceptions (as in caj Armstrong's unfortunate choice of "Usurpation" for "Occupatio" (which merely suggests that Richard took the throne, rightly or wrongly, rather than usurped it). So "short face" has all this time been creating a wrong impression, fortunately contradicted by the portraits.

For the heck of it, I looked up "short face" on Google images and got all sorts of photos of pretty young women!

Anyway, I still don't have the original Latin for Vergil's "deformyd of body, thone showlder being higher than thother," but it was evidently close to Rous's and unquestionably derived from him.

Carol

I got this translation from here:
http://www.stars21.com/translator/latin_to_english.html

"To shorten government the making". I don't think it helps.

Karen

From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:24:29 -0800 (PST)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richards image...

CURTAM HABENS FACIEM

Looking at the alternative definitions on google translate, we get this:

"Shorter having a face rather" or 'having a rather shorter face'.

Not knowing what context this is in, it's hard to know what the 'shorter'
might have been compared to, if anything.

Karen

From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:24:29 -0800 (PST)
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richards image...






I'm still trying to figure out what "short face" is even supposed to mean.
Was
he suggesting Richard looked like he'd run into a wall? That he didn't have
much
in the way of chin?

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, February 10, 2013 9:23:06 PM
Subject: Re: Richards image...

Carol says:

Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this
further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's
translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!

Hope you found that as funny as I did.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > >>
> > >" Have you noticed, Marie, that Rous says Richard had a short face, which we now know (and could always surmise from the portraiture) was untrue? I wonder what that was about."
>
> Marie responded:
> > I was interested to see the facial reconstruction for that reason. I never thought "short face" was the correct translation. This is the original Latin and my translation. The words usually translated as "short face" are in caps, as is my alternative translation of them:
> >
> > "Parvae staturae erat, CURTAM HABENS FACIEM, inaequales humeros, dexter superior sinisterque inferior." (p.215)
> > Translation:
> > He was of small stature, HAVING A DEFECTIVE APPEARANCE (unequal shoulders, the right higher and the left lower).
> > See how close that is to what Vergil says?
>
> Carol says:
>
> Oh, my. Whose translation is "short face," then? I need to look into this further when I get a chance. Meanwhile, just for fun, here is Google's translation of CURTAM HABENS FACIEM: "Curtis had a face"!
>
> Hope you found that as funny as I did.
>
> Carol
>


Well, there's nothing too much wrong with "having a short face" as a translation, although his use of 'curtus' rather than 'brevis' might perhaps have rung warning bells. My Latin isn't hot but I do enjoy homing in on specific words.
The problem is that a lot of Latin words have a range of possible meanings in English, and I was never convinced that short face is what Rous meant, not only because of the word used for 'short' but because it seemed to me he was illustrating what he meant with the detail about the uneven shoulders. These are the options main:-
CURTUS: shortened, mutilated, defective (the usual word for short is brevis)
"FACIES: external form, outward appearance, shape, figure; aspect; a) pretence, pretext; b)look, face, countenance; beauty"

I don't recall where the "short face" translation originated. To my knowledge only snippets of Rous have ever been translated in print, as required to back up a point in a book/ article.

This isn't the only contentious translation in Rous. The words translated as "weak in strength" by the Leicester team (viribus debilis) they originally interpreted as meaning effeminate (as per Jo Appleby in the C4 documentary); on their website you can still see their thinking, which they've not entirely let go of. But this would not have been accurate, and there is still another meaning of vires (the plural of vis 'strength', which is what Rous actually used) besides 'bodily strength', and that is 'military forces'. So Rous could either have meant that Richard was lacking in bodily strength or that he had little military back-up at that stage of things, or a bit of both.

Marie

Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there

Carole


________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
Subject: Conference


 
The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March  on this topic.  Anyone going?

________________________________
 justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote: (snip)

Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

Carol

I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there.  We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
 
 


________________________________
From: carole hughes <caroleugis@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
Subject: Re: Conference

 
Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there

Carole

________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
Subject: Conference


 
The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March  on this topic.  Anyone going?

________________________________
 justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)

Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

Carol

Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carole hughes caroleugis@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
> justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Me too!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:40 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

> I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carole hughes caroleugis@...<mailto:caroleugis%40yahoo.co.uk>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
> justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

George, 11 hours sounds good bearing in mind that I'm 130 miles from Leicester and you are thousands of miles away.
 
 


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 19:40
Subject: Re: Conference

 
Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carole hughes mailto:caroleugis%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
> justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Me too - I got my confirmation this morning.
Marie

--- In , carole hughes wrote:
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To: ""
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
>  
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March  on this topic.  Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
>  justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But that's to an airport at 2am that's 40 miles from London then I have to get to wherever! So whatever transport after air that's my next small problem

G



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 3:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Conference





George, 11 hours sounds good bearing in mind that I'm 130 miles from Leicester and you are thousands of miles away.



________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 19:40
Subject: Re: Conference


Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carole hughes mailto:caroleugis%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
> justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'll be there, too.  Got my confirmation yesterday morning, probably when we all got it.  I heard there will be approx. 450 people attending - so we better make a plan how to find each other.

Cheers, Dorothea



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Conference


 
Me too - I got my confirmation this morning.
Marie

--- In , carole hughes wrote:
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To: ""
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
>  
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March  on this topic.  Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
>  justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am so jealous! You guys will get to meet each other in real life!! Let the rest of us know how it goes! BOL!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 6:23 PM, Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...> wrote:

> I'll be there, too. Got my confirmation yesterday morning, probably when we all got it. I heard there will be approx. 450 people attending - so we better make a plan how to find each other.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
>
> Me too - I got my confirmation this morning.
> Marie
>
> --- In , carole hughes wrote:
> >
> > Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
> >
> > Carole
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > To: ""
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Conference
> >
> >
> > Â
> > The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March  on this topic.  Anyone going?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Â justcarol67 justcarol67@...> wrote: (snip)
> >
> > Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
> >
> > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

It would take me, not counting stopover time - 20 hours just to get to heathrow...



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Conference


 
George, 11 hours sounds good bearing in mind that I'm 130 miles from Leicester and you are thousands of miles away.
 
 

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 19:40
Subject: Re: Conference

 
Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carole hughes mailto:caroleugis%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
> justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It takes me 24 hours...

Dorothea



________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Conference


 
It would take me, not counting stopover time - 20 hours just to get to heathrow...

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: Conference


 
George, 11 hours sounds good bearing in mind that I'm 130 miles from Leicester and you are thousands of miles away.
 
 

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 19:40
Subject: Re: Conference

 
Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:

> I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carole hughes mailto:caroleugis%40yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
>
> Carole
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Conference
>
>
> The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
>
> ________________________________
> justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)
>
> Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And that's from Hampsted Heath!


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 11, 2013, at 7:33 PM, Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...> wrote:

> It would take me, not counting stopover time - 20 hours just to get to heathrow...
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2013 4:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
>
> George, 11 hours sounds good bearing in mind that I'm 130 miles from Leicester and you are thousands of miles away.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 19:40
> Subject: Re: Conference
>
>
> Your lucky I would have the randomness of air transport and Delta airlines on a good day I can make the UK in 11 hours then I have to get to we're I want to be!
> G
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:34 PM, liz williams mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd love to but the vagaries of "engineering works" at weekends on my line mean it would take me around 4 hours each way to get there. We are looking forward to a full report from those who can attend.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: carole hughes mailto:caroleugis%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 11 February 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Conference
> >
> >
> > Just received confirmation of my booking. Looking forward maybe to see some of you there
> >
> > Carole
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Pamela Furmidge mailto:pamela.furmidge%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 February 2013, 16:55
> > Subject: Conference
> >
> >
> > The authors of this article will be speaking at the Society's Conference in March on this topic. Anyone going?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote: (snip)
> >
> > Postscript: I have just discovered a very interesting article in TLS (the Times Literary Supplement) with the unfortunate title "Richard Crookback" discussing this very concept. I haven't had a chance to do more than skim it, but it's a very scholarly analysis citing both English and Latin sources in a very prestigious publication:
> >
> > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Once caught sight of a book about Richard III over 2 decades ago called 'Lord of the North' which struck me as a very positive title for a monarch who has popularly assumed the mantel of the villain.

I know very little about Richard III but the fact that he was betrayed on the field I find hideous. I do hope the miraculous recovery of his remains 500 years later will begin a new chapter in the (re)evaluation of this late king.



--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> It is on Amazon in used book section, and can be purchased for $5 and up, depending on the condition.
>
> On Feb 9, 2013, at 2:51 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah, if you can find one for under $30 total with shipping, I'd nab it now: that's a good price. Interest in Ricardian studies is about to skyrocket and we don't know when, or if, "Road to Bosworth" is going to be reprinted.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Johanne Tournier wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
> >
> > I just ordered it for $16.32 Cdn. Used, in Very Good Condition, from
> > Livrenoir in the UK. There is another copy from calibris in the USA also VG
> > condition for $17.66 Cdn. Sounds like it's worth getting to supplement one's
> > Ricardian library. (smile)
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >

[edit]

"Phaeton G" wrote:
>[snip]
> I know very little about Richard III but the fact that he was betrayed on the field I find hideous. I do hope the miraculous recovery of his remains 500 years later will begin a new chapter in the (re)evaluation of this late king.

Carol responds:

May I recommend Paul Murray Kendall's biography, "Richard III," followed by Annette Carson's "Richard III: The Maligned King" for starters? Annette is planning a revised edition to incorporate the new findings, but there's plenty of information in the original edition.

carol